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."
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Is OSI moral judge ? Do they say Right from Wrong, Good from Evil ? If OSI plans to remain relevant in IT, they should proceed according to their own rules, no matter what Microsoft does elsewhere, which is not their concern.
I see many people getting themselves into a tizzy over morals, judging things on their merits and what the OSI should or shouldn't do. It's all totally irrelevant.
The fact is, in any collaborative organisation like the OSI there are Ps and Qs to be minded, you have to have a track record and a reputation that carries weight with that organisation. That's how collaborative forums like the OSI, and more academic circles, actually work. You can't just wander on to a mailing list, or wander into a committee meeting, and say "We have this license that we think meets the criteria. Ratify it." when you have had no previous contact with that organisation, and have not supported what they do in any way shape or form.
What do you think the OS in OSI stands for? It is up to Microsoft to build that reputation to the point where they are accepted, and constructive dialogue can follow, as countless others have had to do with such organisations before them.
As you say, the OSI are not moral police, they do not police the gateway to the open source world and they are merely one organisation that sets criteria on open source licenses. They can't force any open source project to use a particular license. From that point of view, the OSI owes Microsoft, or any other company who wanders in out of the cold, absolutely nothing.
Personally, I believe that an awful lot of licenses submitted by an awful lot of companies should not have been OSI certified, mainly because they just duplicate things and also because a lot of those companies who've submitted have done very little, if anything, for open source software:
Licenses from companies such as Computer Associates, Sybase and Ricoh simply shouldn't be in there because they are just not companies that contribute anything much at all to open source software, and various licenses by IBM, Sun and Intel shouldn't be either. Even though those companies have contributed varying amounts to the wider open source world, their licenses just muddy the waters and add to confusion. License proliferation is not good for anyone, especially if most are variations on a theme.
Edited 2007-09-03 10:39
Member since:2006-12-07
It is not that OSI owes anything to anybody else, but they owe to themselves. If they don't act according to their own criteria, they are hurting their reputation in the first place. And, yes, even I can submit a license to OSI, no matter that I had no previous contact with them.
Check http://www.opensource.org/approval
particularly point 8.
There are defined criteria, and no one has to "earn" approval based on "good behavior", "being distinguished member of X or Y" or "being faithful".
Member since:
2006-12-07
Is OSI moral judge ? Do they say Right from Wrong, Good from Evil ? If OSI plans to remain relevant in IT, they should proceed according to their own rules, no matter what Microsoft does elsewhere, which is not their concern.
If they judge according to moral criteria, which heavily depend on persons viewpoint, then OSI will become a sectarian organization and a political instrument. No one in IT industry will care about them, except those whose interests are they serving.