Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification

From: Lynn Winebarger <owinebar(at)se232(dot)math(dot)indiana(dot)edu>
To: Russell Nelson <nelson(at)crynwr(dot)com>
Cc: board(at)opensource(dot)org, spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification
Date: 1999-04-10 18:19:15
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

Given this type of response, I must reiterate my suggestion that SPI
assert control over its mark, and (once the bylaws are sufficiently in
place) form a committee to deal with these issues. Given the ongoing
discussion of the bylaws, I have to believe that such a committee would
deal with these issues in a far more appropriate manner, given that their
charter and leaders/members would be subject to the contributing member's
active review. If you believe that the OpenSource mark serves as a
certification for open source developers that a given product is ok to
work on (i.e. you can have reasonable expectations about how your
contributed work can be used), then the idea that you would use the mark
on licenses that aren't there yet seems inappropriate (at least, when
there's no distinction between licenses under ongoing negotiations, and
licenses which really fit with the OSD - where those "levels" I mentioned
earlier on spi-general could come into play).


On 10 Apr 1999, 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.
> > 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?
> > > > 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.
> > > 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. 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.
> --
> -russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com>
> Crynwr supports Open Source(tm) Software| PGPok | There is good evidence
> 521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315 268 1925 voice | that freedom is the
> Potsdam, NY 13676-3213 | +1 315 268 9201 FAX | cause of world peace.
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to spi-general-request(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org


Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marcus Brinkmann 1999-04-10 19:27:11 Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification
Previous Message Russell Nelson 1999-04-10 13:09:23 Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification