Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 2nd Sep 2007 18:40 UTC
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 268254
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[22]: The article in short
by SReilly on Mon 3rd Sep 2007 21:04
in reply to "RE[21]: The article in short"
Member since:2006-12-28
RE[23]: The article in short
by sbergman27 on Mon 3rd Sep 2007 21:15
in reply to "RE[22]: The article in short"
Member since:2005-07-24
"""
Wow, pretty cool thing to do. :-)
"""
Yes. That's Archie. I have a lot of respect for him.
Edit: Molly includes him as one of her friends on this site, as well. We all have strong disagreements. And we consider each other friends... in both the virtual sense and the real world sense (I hope.) Ain't that grand? ;-)
Edited 2007-09-03 21:21
Recent Original Stories
Recent Comments
Headlines
Random Comments
Random Stories
Random OS Link
Member since:
2005-07-02
That's not quite true. There was one "shred" of evidence: the e-mail address using the same name. It was weak evidence, which is why I challenged MollyC to tell us if, yes or no, she was the same person. She said no. End of story.
It was a legitimate question, and the only reason I (and others) brought it up more than once is that we hadn't gotten an answer until now.
I get the feeling you won't let this go until I've apologized to MollyC, so here goes:
"MollyC, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings by asking you if you were Molly Cieslinski, and by assuming that you were when you didn't respond. I accept your assertion that you're not her, and apologize for the anxiety this challenge of your identity might have caused you."
Now can we please put this matter to rest?
Edited 2007-09-03 20:55