Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification

From: Marcus Brinkmann <Marcus(dot)Brinkmann(at)ruhr-uni-bochum(dot)de>
To: Russell Nelson <nelson(at)crynwr(dot)com>, board(at)opensource(dot)org, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification
Date: 1999-04-10 19:27:11
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general


On Sat, Apr 10, 1999 at 01:09:23PM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Marcus Brinkmann writes:
> > The "Open Software Initiative" is a CLOSED organzization. That's damn near
> > to hypocrisy.
> It's in the nature of what we do. By your insistance that we open up,
> you demonstrate that we should not listen to you because you do not
> grok the problem domain. Can you write a program if you don't
> understand the problem? No. Can you have control over us if you
> don't understand the problem we're solving? No.

I don't want to control you, I don't want to solve your problems. But you
should explain your problems and solutions for them to us if you want us to
give you moral support and backing. In the end you promise the suits who
opening source will have advantages to them, esp. more contribution. This
contribution will not come from OSI, but from Free Software developers. OSI
seems to be completely ignorant to that. You need the Free Software
community to hold your promises. Suits will notice that OSI looses ground
among the hackers, and will start not to believe you. You need both sides to

> > You are doing very well talking to suits. Now you have to learn again how to
> > talk to us, the people doing Free Software. Otherwise we'll forget you more
> > then happily, too.
> We never forgot. What do you think I'm doing now?

You're neglecting the need for communication. You talk to us, but at the
same time you tell us that you don't have the time nor feel the need to
"tell us" what OSI is doing (by publishing more details on the web pages or
whatever). This is what I think you are doing, and I think it is Not Good.

> > > > Further, not doing it makes you look like you're not interested in
> > > > correcting those mistakes.
> > >
> > > There will be an APSL 1.1.
> >
> > Who cares? Should I be interested in APSL 1.1? How should I know?
> License negotiations are not conducted in public. You should know
> this if you expect to be respected. You do not -- you are not.

Seems we have found the point where OSI disagrees with the Free Software
community. One of the best business OSD free licenses was NPL, and I pretty
much liked how the license was ALSO developed in public.

If this what you say, "License negotiations are not conducted in public" is
the spirit and guideline for OSI, I am very disappointed, because you are
loosing your own visions and ideals. (Bruce did a much better job with the
NPL back then)

> > > The OSD 1.3 has the ones that are. There are too many others to list
> > > them.
> >
> > *laugh*, sure. Another indication of your closed organization. Why should
> > you publish the fruits of your work? Suits don't do it either.
> It's because I fucking don't have time. If you've got so much copious
> spare time, then you do it, lamer! And we'll publish them on the web
> page, with thanks.

That's a honest answer, thank you. If you don't have the time to write ONE
sentence on the web page, like "We are talking with Apple about the problems
with the APSL" (or anything like that), I am forced to believe that yo have
not the time to manage the Open Source trademark very well.

Instead of provoking me with four letter words, you could have worked on the
web pages instead.

> You've got no right to demand that I do this, or
> that I do that. Would you demand that a free software author give
> more of his or her time to write a feature? You bet your bippy you
> wouldn't -- not and live through it. Well you're not getting away
> with it of me either.

I will not demand anything from you. OTOH I expect from you the same. OSI is
demanding followship and support from the Free Software community. That's
alot, and I wish OSI would have the sense to give some information back in
return. Otherwise I can't see why anyone should give you support anyway.

Sorry, for me it appears you have strengthen my point. Don't bother replying
if you don't have the time, I don't want to occupy it. Nothing in this mail
should matter much to you if the situation with OSI is as bad as I am afraid
it is.

Your reputation in the Free Software community is pretty low, though, from
the experiences I make (not that this means a lot). This is probably
something you want to work on, if you want not to disappoint the suits.
Or it could happen that we have a lot of (semi) OSD free business licenses
and source code under it that nobody wants to work on. I don't think that's
something you want, isn't it?

Thank you,

`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU
Marcus(dot)Brinkmann(at)ruhr-uni-bochum(dot)de for public PGP Key PGP Key ID 36E7CD09

Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Russell Nelson 1999-04-10 19:50:14 Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification
Previous Message Lynn Winebarger 1999-04-10 18:19:15 Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification