Let's back up a couple step. I can't even figure out what we're discussing.
Do you want a *policy* for OB that all projects have to adhere to? Do you want *guidelines* for all projects under the OB banner? Is there some *specific project* that doesn't have a well-defined license, such that it is of concern to the OB community? Do we just want to define terms like "open", "community" and so forth so that we have a common terminology? If there are specific concerns about specific projects, then I'm all for a hearty discussion. If we want to recommend specific licenses as "preferred" for all OB projects, then that's a good discussion too. As to whether any specific license or project, data, or community should be called "open" or not, I don't see how that's useful. Just read the terms, and decide for yourself if you want to participate in the project, or use the project's results. The word "open" is more political than descriptive. Microsoft calls its projects "open" for political/business reasons, but most open-source contributors don't buy Microsoft's definition of the term. Richard Stallman's definition of "open" is so extreme that I don't agree with it at all, yet he has my respect. I'd rather not get caught up in semantics, but instead prefer stick to pragmatic issues. When I see the word "open," I'm not going to ask, "What's your definition?" The word "open" is a broad categorization, a "feel good" word that broadly indicates the project's overall nature. It's the license, and only the license, that actually matters. Craig ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Return on Information: Google Enterprise Search pays you back Get the facts. http://p.sf.net/sfu/google-dev2dev _______________________________________________ Blueobelisk-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/blueobelisk-discuss
