Quoting Ian Lance Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Note that my statement is no way conflicts with Rick's. Rick said the > OSD is largely license-neutral. I agree.
Just to clarify, the statement "The OSD as written today is largely license-neutral" was Chuck Swiger's, not mine. (Note that I favour Commonwealth spelling, and so would write "licence-neutral".) I'm concerned that this discussion is starting to chase a chimaera: That is, some BSD and ex-NeXT types started blitzing this mailing list with fervent (but mistaken) concerns about the OSI either being or becoming a lobby for the GNU General Public Licence. Their alleged evidence for this trend was several non-Board members' expressions of dislike towards Sean's licence -- which makes the former's argument non-sequitur, right there -- and ignores the lengthy list of GPL-incompatible licences OSI has already approved. To my knowledge, the OSI exists to make the case for open source (not any specific flavour of it) to the larger world. If the Board ever decide to change their minds, I'm sure they'll let us know. -- Cheers, I once successfully declined a departmental retreat, Rick Moen saying that on that day I planned instead to advance. [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Alan J. Rosenthal, in the Monastery -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
