To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Anyway, it's not relevant to the OSI submission process, despite DiBona's wishes to the contrary.
I'm afraid it is. [snipped trite Microsoft bashing]
If you bothered to read the OSI discussion list, you'll see that DiBona isn't getting much, if any, support. So while you believe this is relevant, I don't think OSI on the whole does.
I'm afraid it is. [snipped trite Microsoft bashing]
Whatever sweetheart.
If you bothered to read the OSI discussion list, you'll see that DiBona isn't getting much, if any, support. So while you believe this is relevant, I don't think OSI on the whole does.
Di Bona has got quite a bit of support once he's explained his position, so please don't take that Microsoft tac with me and tell me what's going on as if it's some sort of fact.
Fact is, that view is very important to the OSI and the licenses it endorses, and having a track record is very important in a community and committee based organisation. If you don't have it then you don't get a free ride. I also explained the OSI's current licensing view of cutting down on the number of needless licenses, most variations on a theme, and that really does apply.




Member since:
2005-07-06
Anyway, it's not relevant to the OSI submission process, despite DiBona's wishes to the contrary.
I'm afraid it is. A track record with an open style organisation such as the OSI is pretty much a given. Microsoft has done nothing to help the OSI, has done everything to deride it's cause and that of the concept of open source software and the licenses they are submitting do nothing to help open source software, nor do they further it in any way. The OSI has also stated it wants to cut down on the variety of different licenses.
I'm afraid Microsoft cannot just submit a license to the OSI and expect it to be accepted. The licenses many vendors have come under quite a bit of scrutiny as well, and arguably, they shouldn't have been approved by the OSI.