On Friday 31 August 2007 15:25, Raj Mathur wrote:
On Friday 31 August 2007 14:04, jtd wrote:
[snip] No. Because OSI approved licences can mean anything eg. CDDL and a wierdo Nokia licence. Free in their own jails. And OSI is deliberating the approval of some M$ licence which is anything but open. Hmmm. No i am sure that the two have nothing in common and only the customers best interests are in consideration as customers are craving for the crack that they are living on and it is sooo cruel to deny them their fix.
Yes, the OSI doesn't necessarily view things exactly as FSF does. IMO that's no reason to write off the OSD (Open Source Definition, of which they are the stewards), as without value.
Not the definition, just the OSI.
As for the CDDL (I don't know which Nokia licence you are referring to), it is recognised as a free software licence incompatible with the GPL by FSF, so I see no issues with OSI approval: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html/view?searchterm=cd dl
"Also, it terminates in retaliation for certain aggressive uses of patents. So, a module covered by the GPL and a module covered by the CDDL cannot legally be linked together "
As i said the cddl is free in it's own jail. Not as u make it out to be "just a little" different, and partly acceptable by the FSF. You cant use cddl code outside of solaris.
The function of the OSI is to accept each licence that is submitted for approval.
Even when it discriminates against different classes of users, in direct contradiction of the OSD? Like the cddl.?
Whether the licence actually gets approved or not is up to the OSI Licence Committee, which usually bases its decision on public discussion in an open forum (licence-discuss mailing list). There is no way the OSI can turn around to MS and say, ``yeah, your licence meets the OSD,
It does not meet the OSD.
but you're MS, so, er, we're not considering it at all, sucks be to you.'' -- impartiality and openness are the price you pay for stewardship.
"Your licence discriminates against different classes of users so stop wasting our time" is the right answer. And should have been for several OSI approved licences CDDL included.
You can call them a bunch of inconsequential jerks, and move on, or you can appreciate the skill with which they are striving to balance hundreds of conflicting interests to ensure that neither the FLOSS community nor corporates lose out in the battles that are being played out every day in courts, board rooms, government offices, educational institutions and homes. The choice is yours.
Strange that the compromises by the OSI (so far) has always been about resricting users freedom, as opposed to the FSF which always upholds freedom.
Finally, as Eben Moglen said, have no illusions -- we are in a war, and it will be fought to the finish.
Naturally. given that the money bags have to compete like the rest of us with innovation, service and costs, rather than vote buying, prior art patents, shady deals and law suits.