Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 2nd Sep 2007 18:40 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Eric S. Raymond writes on his blog: "There's been a lot of debate in the community about how OSI should properly handle Microsoft's planned submission of some of its licenses for OSD certification. That debate has been been going on within OSI, too. OSI's official position, from the beginning, which I helped formulate and have expressed to any number of reporters and analysts, is that OSI will treat any licenses submitted to Microsoft strictly on their merits, without fear or favor. That remains OSI's position. But I find that my resolve is being sorely tested."
Thread beginning with comment 268060
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Good post
by kaiwai on Mon 3rd Sep 2007 01:38 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Good post"
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

I don't care if Hannibal Lecter himself submitted the license - it ought not influence whether or not said license is approved by the OSI. Last time I checked, the OSI is not the Moral Police Corps. Just handle the license as it is presented to you, and disregard who submitted it.

Let the moral judgement be done by users (developers, in this case).


But at the end of the day people do decide whether or not the licence is classed as opensource. It doesn't matter how much the source of judgement protests, its going to be influenced by bias. That is what Raymond is pointing out, it is going to be incredibly hard to take a unbiased moral high ground given the current state of affairs.

Bias appears everywhere, look in politics, for example - an election that might been seen as by the UN as absolutely flawed could be used by a certain super power as an example of progress. Same will occur here. Submitting to a standards body is as much to do about the facts as it is to do with the any possible relationship which Microsoft might have with those who are in the standardisation process.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2