I agree with Matt that almost above all the open source community should
value the spirit of openness. Having said that, I think that to the extent
that OSI can foster an environment where the open source community continues
to rise to the next level of extending the benefits of open source
Rick Moen wrote:
begin Greg London quotation:
Look, nobody's going to force-feed common sense
to people who don't want to read the OSD in the
spirit intended. One has to find one's own.
If someone puts out a bunch of source code under
the MIT license, and the distro is OSI certifiable,
begin Greg London quotation:
If someone puts out a bunch of source code under the MIT license, and
the distro is OSI certifiable, there is nothing to prevent someone
else from redistributing it in binary form only. Their only penalty
is that they lose OSI certification.
_Licences_ are
On Tue, 25 Sep 2001, Rick Moen wrote:
The DFSG (and thus the OSD) were indeed abstracted out from several
popular licences (if I remember accounts by Bruce P.). As adopted by
I'd like to restate this. Prior to the formation of the OSI, the free
software community was an open, friendly place
Rick Moen wrote:
begin Greg London quotation:
If someone puts out a bunch of source code under the MIT license, and
the distro is OSI certifiable, there is nothing to prevent someone
else from redistributing it in binary form only. Their only penalty
is that they lose OSI
On Wed, Sep 26, 2001 at 10:55:36AM -0400, Greg London wrote:
With 26 licenses, some of them extremely long,
most people will not read all of them,nor understand
the implications of them. I skipped over to the
OSD, read that, and assumed that I could pick
any approved license, and the OSD
begin Greg London quotation:
_Licences_ are OSD-certified. Software is open-source or not, in
accordance with its nature (including but not limited to licensing).
http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.html
The OSI Certified mark applies to software, not to licenses.
Was
Ah, several items just fell into place.
1) The OSD and the OSI approved licenses (AL)
are totally independent.
2) Some of the OSI AL's also happen to meet
the OSD definition, and some do not.
But OSI does not determine this.
3) OSI approved it's licenses not because
of how they measured
On Tue, Sep 25, 2001 at 09:03:18PM -0400, Greg London wrote:
6) You can use an OSI approved license and
not be OSI certified.
See, this clears up a -whole- lot of confusion.
I thought the OSD was somehow related to
the approved OSI licenses.
Instead, OSI approved its first four licenses
begin Greg London quotation:
Ah, several items just fell into place.
Yes, but they didn't fit.
Look, nobody's going to force-feed common sense to people who
don't want to read the OSD in the spirit intended. One has to
find one's own.
The DFSG (and thus the OSD) were indeed abstracted out
Greg London writes:
1) The OSD and the OSI approved licenses (AL)
are totally independent.
Nope. You are confused. Have you figured out where yet?
--
-russ nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://russnelson.com
Crynwr sells support for free software | PGPok | It's a crime, not an act
521
11 matches
Mail list logo
