> Or maybe I won't bother. I like the concept of the OSI and what they're
> ostensibly doing, and I'd even like to help, but when it comes right
> down to it, it's not like OSI certification is actually _useful_ for
> anything..
It's really useful. Maybe not in your case, but let me explain.
As a user (as opposed to a developer in this example) I really and truley
don't give a shit (inserted for dramatic effect only) what license a progam I
use has other than to know it is compliant with the open-source definition.
It's license is on the list? Great, I'm in.
The day I read all those licenses to figure out every little detail of what
they all mean is the day I shoot myself. Is it 'OSI certified'? That's all
I need to know. That someone who knows this legal mumbo-jumbo and given it
the nod is good enough for me.
As more newbies come looking for this thing 'open-source' they keep hearing
about they're going to want to know one thing only. Is it open-source or
not? Yes or no?
Please reconsider your position.
IANAL, but I play one on TV!
--
Steve Mallett | Just Stable, Open-Source Apps
http://OpenSourceDirectory.org | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Project-Listing Maintenance In A Can: http://trovesendtwo.sf.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Aug 15th/01,
I have nothing to do with license approval.)
"Non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good."
-- Mohandas Gandhi
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
