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 20:24:42
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox
Lists: spi-general

On 10 Apr 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:

> Lynn Winebarger writes:
> >
> > Given this type of response, I must reiterate my suggestion that SPI
> > assert control over its mark,
> You've GOT to be kidding. Are people actually suggesting this??? OSI
> has been sending out cease and desist letters. OSI has been
> negotiating changes in web pages. OSI has been promoting the mark.
> OSI gathered contributions for a logo, and is currently evaluating
> them. OSI has been certifying licenses. And suddenly it's SPI's
> mark? In my universe, those who do the work get to own it.
As far as I can tell, it's always been SPI's mark. Do a search on
Open Source at
I'm sure there are others who are willing to do the work. The real
question is how to make the certifying body responsible to actual free
software developers. I believe the current work on the bylaws of SPI
regarding membership and committees shows it will be superior in terms of
accountability, which seems to be the major flaw with the way the OSI
appears to operate now (to me). It may be that the "suits" can identify
with a highly closed operation, but the free software community is much
more democratic, and its members (I've found) tend to be more
freedom-concious than average. Backroom dealings might be acceptable as
necessary, but without accountability, that acceptance is likely to be low
to none.



Browse spi-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Will Lowe 1999-04-10 20:59:28 Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification
Previous Message Russell Nelson 1999-04-10 20:22:49 Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification