Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification

I guess the main problem I have is the back-room dealing that seems to be
going on. Netscape had Eric and I _consult_ on their license, and then
they had a public comment period before the license was finalized. Apple
comes out with a license declared as Open Source as a fait a compli, and
(at least to start with) no path for public comment.

I'm also concerned about how Eric changed his tune about enforcing the
Open Source trademark after I'd already worked on it for an entire year.
He started arbitrarily handing out the right to use it, once even overriding
the entire Open Source Initiative board (when he gave the right to O'Reilly
for the Open Source Summit and Open Source Expo). I also do not believe that
there was actually a vote of the Open Source board before APSL approval, as
far as I can tell there would not have been time - I think this is another
occassion where Eric made his own call.

Bruce

Man, I have some bad memories of the same kind of things going on on the
Debian BOD that you headed. Give him some slack. Eric needs some time to
deal with all the communication issues etc. Both ego's are hurt. Now stand
down and let things cool down.

Moreover you are stating your side of the issue here without him having a
chance to respond. This is just making Eric look bad to SPI. Talk with him
and sort these things out.

On 3 Apr 1999 bruce(at)perens(dot)com wrote:

> I guess the main problem I have is the back-room dealing that seems to be
> going on. Netscape had Eric and I _consult_ on their license, and then
> they had a public comment period before the license was finalized. Apple
> comes out with a license declared as Open Source as a fait a compli, and
> (at least to start with) no path for public comment.
>
> I'm also concerned about how Eric changed his tune about enforcing the
> Open Source trademark after I'd already worked on it for an entire year.
> He started arbitrarily handing out the right to use it, once even overriding
> the entire Open Source Initiative board (when he gave the right to O'Reilly
> for the Open Source Summit and Open Source Expo). I also do not believe that
> there was actually a vote of the Open Source board before APSL approval, as
> far as I can tell there would not have been time - I think this is another
> occassion where Eric made his own call.

***** CL => Christoph Lameter

CL> Moreover you are stating your side of the issue here without him
CL> having a chance to respond.

Sometimes a man's actions speaks for themselves. I believe this is
ESR's case.

Cheers,

--
Davide G. M. Salvetti -- IW5DZC
<http://www.linux.it/%7Esalve/>

On Sat, Apr 03, 1999 at 07:02:04AM -0000, bruce(at)perens(dot)com wrote:
> I guess the main problem I have is the back-room dealing that seems to be
> going on.

FWIW, I have the same problem with the way Eric and OSI are dealing with
the open source mark.

For instance, I wanted to Cc this to the osi-board. So I went to the OSI
web site. And went to the board roster. And found I had to search through
the respective home pages for an email address. I couldn't find one for
Peter Deutsch. But there ought to be an osi-board(at)osi(dot)org or some such. At
the very least, email addresses for the board ought to be easy to get at.

My major problem, though, is that Eric is acting with the support of the
OSI board (although if you believe Bruce, even that's questionable), and
that's about it. There's no community involvement at all.

I find this especially strange coming from the author of _tCatB_,
but anyway.

What I would like to see is:

* OSI publically admit it's mistakes, and act, publically, to
rectify them. The APSL is not open source, yet what's the answer
to the very first FAQ at
http://www.publicsource.apple.com/ps-faq.html
? It's ``the Open Source Initiative has determined that the Apple
Public Source License is conformant to the "Open Source
Definition"'' This should read ``The Open Source Initiative is
currently working with Apple to fix the few remaining flaws in
the license'', or something similar.

* OSI publically consult before granting any license OS status.
I don't *care* how cool the OSI board is at reading licenses, or
how much experience they have coding free software, they're *not*
getting it right.

Or are we too busy destroying each others characters to do anything like
this?

Cheers,
aj

--
Anthony Towns <aj(at)humbug(dot)org(dot)au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Anthony Towns writes:
> My major problem, though, is that Eric is acting with the support of the
> OSI board (although if you believe Bruce, even that's questionable), and
> that's about it. There's no community involvement at all.

We've already voted to establish a mailing list for discussing
licenses. I'm waiting for a few technical changes to announce the
list. In the meantime I can add you by hand if you wish, although
there's no discussion since there's no way to get to that address.

> * This should read ``The Open Source Initiative is
> currently working with Apple to fix the few remaining flaws in
> the license'', or something similar.

One doesn't admit to a mistake without having a solution in place.
It's simply not done.

> * OSI publically consult before granting any license OS status.

Will be done. Any other demands?

--
-russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

On Sat, Apr 10, 1999 at 04:16:09AM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > My major problem, though, is that Eric is acting with the support of the
> > OSI board (although if you believe Bruce, even that's questionable), and
> > that's about it. There's no community involvement at all.
> We've already voted to establish a mailing list for discussing
> licenses. I'm waiting for a few technical changes to announce the
> list. In the meantime I can add you by hand if you wish, although
> there's no discussion since there's no way to get to that address.

Cool.

How will this mailing list be used? Will comments raised on that list
be taken into account before or after a license is deemed open source?
How will comments from that list be taken into account?

I trust every post from the first will be publically archived?

> > * This should read ``The Open Source Initiative is
> > currently working with Apple to fix the few remaining flaws in
> > the license'', or something similar.
> One doesn't admit to a mistake without having a solution in place.
> It's simply not done.

http://bugs.debian.org/
http://developer.redhat.com/bugzilla/index.phtml
http://www.mozilla.org/bugs/
http://www.be.com/developers/bugs/index.html

It is to done.

Further, not doing it makes you look like you're not interested in
correcting those mistakes.

> > * OSI publically consult before granting any license OS status.
> Will be done. Any other demands?

Put a link to board(at)opensource(dot)org on the `Roster of the Board' page
at www.opensource.org. Replace the <a href="mailto:esr">mail us</a>
links with links to board(at)opensource(dot)org(dot)

Talk to the SPI membership (spi-private(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org /
spi-general(at)lists(dot)spi-inc(dot)org), or the SPI board (board(at)spi-inc(dot)org)
and work out some way of dealing with the "Open Source is a trademark of
OSI/SPI" thing. This is getting beyond a joke, and may be starting to
hurt our case. Unfortunately, OSI hasn't made any concessions towards
SPI ever, and SPI hasn't yet been given much reason to think OSI is
really competent to own it. Or that's my take on it anyway. I think the
most politic way of dealing with this is to let SPI own it, and let OSI
manage it with no/negligble interference. You, and everyone else in SPI
might think differently.

Those would be my demands. I'd also like to see OSI keep a record of
licenses that are open source, and ones that aren't on the opensource.org
pages; ideally with some discussion of what's good about them and what's
not.

Thanks, by the way.

Cheers,
aj

--
Anthony Towns <aj(at)humbug(dot)org(dot)au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

[multiple cc's removed]

> * OSI publically consult before granting any license OS status.

I agree. But how? At the moment there's considerable fragmentation among
the Free Software community. And asking for public consultation results
in utter chaos.

... the only way it worked the first time (Mozilla) was to ask a
few select people (Debian/Bruce, ESR, some others) to coordinate.

Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| harpo(at)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)cis(dot)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)debian(dot)org |
| http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/ |
| PGP Public Key: http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/index.html#pgpkey |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anthony Towns writes:
> On Sat, Apr 10, 1999 at 04:16:09AM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Anthony Towns writes:
> > > My major problem, though, is that Eric is acting with the support of the
> > > OSI board (although if you believe Bruce, even that's questionable), and
> > > that's about it. There's no community involvement at all.
> > We've already voted to establish a mailing list for discussing
> > licenses. I'm waiting for a few technical changes to announce the
> > list. In the meantime I can add you by hand if you wish, although
> > there's no discussion since there's no way to get to that address.
>
> Cool.
>
> How will this mailing list be used? Will comments raised on that list
> be taken into account before or after a license is deemed open source?

Before.

> How will comments from that list be taken into account?

I have no idea. The board is comprised of six individuals. I expect
that they will all have their own method of taking it into account
when board decisions are made.

> I trust every post from the first will be publically archived?

Yes.

> > > * This should read ``The Open Source Initiative is
> > > currently working with Apple to fix the few remaining flaws in
> > > the license'', or something similar.
> > One doesn't admit to a mistake without having a solution in place.
> > It's simply not done.
>
> It is too done.

You're confusing what hackers do amongst themselves with what suits do.
OSI doesn't exist to talk to hackers. It talks to suits, and has to
talk their language.

> Further, not doing it makes you look like you're not interested in
> correcting those mistakes.

There will be an APSL 1.1.

> > > * OSI publically consult before granting any license OS status.
> > Will be done. Any other demands?
>
> Put a link to board(at)opensource(dot)org on the `Roster of the Board' page
> at www.opensource.org. Replace the <a href="mailto:esr">mail us</a>
> links with links to board(at)opensource(dot)org(dot)

I'd really, really rather *not* get a ton of mail sent to that address
thankyouverymuch.

> Those would be my demands. I'd also like to see OSI keep a record of
> licenses that are open source, and ones that aren't on the opensource.org
> pages; ideally with some discussion of what's good about them and what's
> not.

The OSD 1.3 has the ones that are. There are too many others to list
them.

--
-russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Will Lowe wrote:
>
> I agree. But how? At the moment there's considerable fragmentation among
> the Free Software community. And asking for public consultation results
> in utter chaos.
>
> ... the only way it worked the first time (Mozilla) was to ask a
> few select people (Debian/Bruce, ESR, some others) to coordinate.
>

Not true. Netscape created a special newsgroup for discussion of the
license which anyone could join. There was discussion; a solid half was
unproductive gnu.misc.discuss spillover, another quarter was God knows
what, but a quarter of it was interesting and/or useful. Netscape people
participated in the discussion, as did people like RMS and Bruce, and
ideas from it were folded in to the NPL/MPL drafts (several of these were
released). Netscape even sent all the newsgroup participants cool Mozilla
T-shirts a few months later, which was a nice gesture.

In the end, almost all of the little nitpicks people could think of were
taken out of the license (one more was recently removed, also in response
to concerns from the public). The original NPL was not free software, the
final draft was. And everyone felt really good about it, because the
process was open. It is not even relevant whether the public conversations
"mattered" or not, though I believe they did.

I have no doubt that there were also a lot of private conversations going
on, within Netscape and between Netscape and ESR and Netscape and Bruce
and etc., etc. Private dealings even started well before public
discussion, IIRC, though my memory is fuzzy on the details. These private
discussions played a big part, no doubt, and there's nothing wrong with
that.

But there was *also* an open, public process.

Since we ("the free software community," which SPI hopefully represents)
own the Open Source mark, we have the right to insist on such a process.
I'm sure the suits value the element of surprise and would prefer
pre-endorsement behind closed doors. But IMO this is an important element
of keeping the community together and functioning healthily. If we lose a
suit or two, so be it. Their loss; we are winning now anyway.

Besides, they can always get pre-endorsed by resisting the temptation to
create an incompatible, incomprehensible, self-branded license that keeps
the code from being reused in other software. As many have pointed out,
Apple's code isn't good for a thing besides running Apple's proprietary
OS; due to the license, it can't even be recycled in any of the free OS's.
This may explain some of the bitterness, apart from any OSD violations.

New licenses should be discouraged, and requiring a public discussion
period is one way to do that (while also ensuring the legitimacy of any
that are created, and the harmony of the community).

Havoc

On Sat, Apr 10, 1999 at 05:08:20AM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > How will comments from that list be taken into account?
> I have no idea. The board is comprised of six individuals. I expect
> that they will all have their own method of taking it into account
> when board decisions are made.

...which leaves the door wide open for the OSI board to completely
ignore comments, or even filter the entire list to /dev/null with a
handy procmail script.

I hope I'm just being paranoid and all, but it'd be nice if there was
some way of making sure some concerns could be met, rather than drowned
out in other noise or conveniently forgotten.

I'd highly recommend, at least initially, having some formal procedure
for lodging complaints, and making sure they're all addressed (by pointing
out other free licenses that have similar "problems"; or by changing the
license; or something similar) before the license is declared open source.

It's just a little bit difficult to take it on good faith that the OSI
board are essentially great blokes and will just do everything right,
so don't you worry about that now. I apologise for being untrusting.

> > > > * This should read ``The Open Source Initiative is
> > > > currently working with Apple to fix the few remaining flaws in
> > > > the license'', or something similar.
> > > One doesn't admit to a mistake without having a solution in place.
> > > It's simply not done.
> > It is too done.
> You're confusing what hackers do amongst themselves with what suits do.
> OSI doesn't exist to talk to hackers. It talks to suits, and has to
> talk their language.

And you're forgetting that OSI is an interface between suits and hackers,
not just suits and suits. OSI exists to get hackers and suits to agree on
good licenses for software.

And in any case. Releasing your source code just isn't done either.

Admitting your mistakes, your bugs, your design flaws, whatever is a key
element of free software development.

Why isn't OSI doing it? Because you're not willing to buck the trends of
the mainstream? Right.

> > Further, not doing it makes you look like you're not interested in
> > correcting those mistakes.
> There will be an APSL 1.1.

Hurrah. So, everytime I find I don't like a license you've claimed is
open source, I should flood board(at)opensource(dot)org with mail asking for
a personal reassurance that you're working on the problems?

Look. I'm convinced, you do care. But from the opensource pages, from
public response posted to slashdot, and from the rumour mill you just
don't look like you're doing anything about it.

> > > > * OSI publically consult before granting any license OS status.
> > > Will be done. Any other demands?
> > Put a link to board(at)opensource(dot)org on the `Roster of the Board' page
> > at www.opensource.org. Replace the <a href="mailto:esr">mail us</a>
> > links with links to board(at)opensource(dot)org(dot)
> I'd really, really rather *not* get a ton of mail sent to that address
> thankyouverymuch.

Then add a rider "Please mail the President concerning most matters at
president(at)opensource(dot)org(dot) If you need to contact the whole board, mail
board(at)opensource(dot)org", and change "mail us" to "mail the OSI President".

As it stands, it still looks like Eric is the guy to talk to, and
everyone else is just standing around trying to give him a little bit
of credibility.

And, again, what of reconciling the OSI/SPI debacle? Would OSI consent
to telling people to put "Open Source is a trademark of Software in
the Public Interest", and leaving SPI with final control of the OSD,
and the OS trademark? If not, why not, and what would you rather?

(if you'd rather take this up privately with the SPI board, that's fine,
but it'd be nice to have a note that you're doing this rather than just
trimming the issue from your reply)

> > Those would be my demands. I'd also like to see OSI keep a record of
> > licenses that are open source, and ones that aren't on the opensource.org
> > pages; ideally with some discussion of what's good about them and what's
> > not.
> The OSD 1.3 has the ones that are. There are too many others to list
> them.

The OSD lists the GPL, LGPL, BSD, X, Artistic, MPL and QPL licenses. Yay.
Woo. What about the APSL, Sun's Community License, IBM's Jikes license,
and all the other weird licenses that may or may not be open source?

I'm sure you've thought about all of these, is it really that much more
effort to pen a note saying "Yes, this is open source", or "No, it's not
because of such-n-such" ?

Beyond that, it would be a useful community resource to have some public
summary of the good/bad/arguable points of each of the licenses. Why the
GPL is viral, why you can mix BSD and GPL'd code, why you can't mix QPL'd
and GPL'd code and so forth.

I can understand that you, personally, might have better things to work
on. I can't understand why you're willing to just palm it off with a
"there's too many to list; go away kid, you bother me". That's not the
way free software people respond to feature requests.

Why is it the way OSI does?

Cheers,
aj

--
Anthony Towns <aj(at)humbug(dot)org(dot)au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Hi,

On Sat, Apr 10, 1999 at 05:08:20AM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > > > * This should read ``The Open Source Initiative is
> > > > currently working with Apple to fix the few remaining flaws in
> > > > the license'', or something similar.
> > > One doesn't admit to a mistake without having a solution in place.
> > > It's simply not done.
> >
> > It is too done.
>
> You're confusing what hackers do amongst themselves with what suits do.
> OSI doesn't exist to talk to hackers. It talks to suits, and has to
> talk their language.

You are playing a dangerous game. I don't think it is possible to merge
business and Free Software, so I think OSI will loose the game anyway. But
maybe you don't want to have the contacts to the Free Software community
anymore, because, let's face it, you are closing up.

The "Open Software Initiative" is a CLOSED organzization. That's damn near
to hypocrisy.

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.

> > 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?

> > Those would be my demands. I'd also like to see OSI keep a record of
> > licenses that are open source, and ones that aren't on the opensource.org
> > pages; ideally with some discussion of what's good about them and what's
> > 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.

I think I'm done with OSI. Sorry if this comments are so destructive. The
only constructive comment I can give is that you should try as fast as
possible to be as "Open" as you can. If you target the suits only, you have
to expect that only suits will pay attention to you.

Thanks,
Marcus

--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus(dot)Brinkmann(at)ruhr-uni-bochum(dot)de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09

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> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

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).

Lynn

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> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
> 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
>

Hi,

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
exist.

> > 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,
Marcus

--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus(dot)Brinkmann(at)ruhr-uni-bochum(dot)de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09

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.

--
-russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

Anthony Towns writes:
> It's just a little bit difficult to take it on good faith that the OSI
> board are essentially great blokes and will just do everything right,
> so don't you worry about that now. I apologise for being untrusting.

I expect that you'll find we make mistakes. Nobody's perfect. But if
you look at the track record of the board members, I think you'll find
a long string of consistent support for libre software. History matters.

> Admitting your mistakes, your bugs, your design flaws, whatever is a key
> element of free software development.

You are absolutely right. That is how hackers do things. It's
completely lacking in a business environment. If we were to be seen
as hackers, we would get the same regard that hackers have always
gotten: zero.

> > > Further, not doing it makes you look like you're not interested in
> > > correcting those mistakes.
> > There will be an APSL 1.1.
>
> Hurrah. So, everytime I find I don't like a license you've claimed is
> open source, I should flood board(at)opensource(dot)org with mail asking for
> a personal reassurance that you're working on the problems?

No. You should look at the work we've done and say "They are good.
They are our friends. We trust them." It's not like I was chosen out
of the blue to be on the board. I marketed packet drivers
sufficiently well enough to hold my own against Microsoft and Novell,
for a few years anyway.

> Look. I'm convinced, you do care. But from the opensource pages, from
> public response posted to slashdot, and from the rumour mill you just
> don't look like you're doing anything about it.

You don't see the duck's feet paddling, either. OSI has *got* to look
like a duck -- calm and unruffled on top, and paddling like crazy
underneath. It's the only way we can function.

> Then add a rider "Please mail the President concerning most matters at
> president(at)opensource(dot)org(dot) If you need to contact the whole board, mail
> board(at)opensource(dot)org", and change "mail us" to "mail the OSI President".

I'd rather have one person in the front line. I don't want a
gazillion people mailing the whole board.

> (if you'd rather take this up privately with the SPI board, that's fine,
> but it'd be nice to have a note that you're doing this rather than just
> trimming the issue from your reply)

It's being negotiated with the SPI board.

> I can understand that you, personally, might have better things to work
> on. I can't understand why you're willing to just palm it off with a
> "there's too many to list; go away kid, you bother me". That's not the
> way free software people respond to feature requests.

The way free software people respond to feature requests is "send code."

--
-russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

Lynn Winebarger writes:
> As far as I can tell, it's always been SPI's mark. Do a search on
> Open Source at http://www.uspto.gov/.

Registration does not convey ownership -- everybody knows that.

--
-russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

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 http://www.uspto.gov/.
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.

Lynn

> > Admitting your mistakes, your bugs, your design flaws, whatever is a key
> > element of free software development.
> You are absolutely right. That is how hackers do things. It's
> completely lacking in a business environment. If we were to be seen
> as hackers, we would get the same regard that hackers have always
> gotten: zero.

Hmm. Hackers got some pretty big regard with Mozilla, the first
time around. And the Halloween documents show some regard, too :). I
thought this whole thing was about 'them' (suits) coming to 'us'(1) (Free
Software), and not the other way around? Yeah, I understand the need to
meet in the middle, but still ... I don't want to play in their backyard.
They want to play in mine.

I'd say that at the recent rash of companies announcing "Open
Source" (or whatever) projects isn't a whole lot of regard for hackers.

It's a publicity stunt.

Will

(1) I'd like to acknowledge, for the record, that my contributions to the
world of free software (note no caps) are tiny (a few Debian packages,
mostly). I don't claim to speak for the hacker or free software community
at large.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| harpo(at)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)cis(dot)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)debian(dot)org |
| http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/ |
| PGP Public Key: http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/index.html#pgpkey |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

> the code from being reused in other software. As many have pointed out,
> Apple's code isn't good for a thing besides running Apple's proprietary
> OS; due to the license, it can't even be recycled in any of the free OS's.
> This may explain some of the bitterness, apart from any OSD violations.
But here we get into feeping creaturism. We _don't_ have a solid
definition of Free Software in the OSD or DPSG if we also want to include
the stipulation that the code be useful for anything in particular.

Obviously we can't write an OSD v.2 that includes a clause about
_everything_ that anybody might ever write into a license. I think that
the only reason the GPL stands up under so much debate is because it's
been around for a while and we've got a general consensus about how we
think the wording should be interpreted. Even then, we had big problems
e.g. with Kde and Debian.

How do we make what we mean by Free Software clear to people _before_ we
have to argue about it? At the moment, it often seems to me that neither
side is completely sure _what_ the topic of the argument is about.

Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| harpo(at)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)cis(dot)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)debian(dot)org |
| http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/ |
| PGP Public Key: http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/index.html#pgpkey |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| You think you're so smart, but I've seen you naked |
| and I'll prob'ly see you naked again ... |
| --The Barenaked Ladies, "Blame It On Me" |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On 10 Apr 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:

> Lynn Winebarger writes:
> > As far as I can tell, it's always been SPI's mark. Do a search on
> > Open Source at http://www.uspto.gov/.
>
> Registration does not convey ownership -- everybody knows that.
>
Maybe not, but it does help when disputes arise. As far as I can tell,
the only reason the OSI board has been controlling the mark is that SPI
has not wanted to push the issue too hard, not that OSI has any more
legitimacy in it's control of the mark than SPI has given it. Frankly,
though, given the attitudes evinced publicly by ESR and yourself (here),
it's not clear to me that letting the situation remain as is is a
worthwhile tradeoff for avoiding the spectacle of a dispute over the mark.

Lynn

On Sat, Apr 10, 1999 at 08:22:49PM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Registration does not convey ownership -- everybody knows that.
Registration *does* convey ownership... That's the whole purpose of the
registration. If you doubt, call your lawyer and ask him.

--
Please cc all mailing list replies to me, also.
=========================================================================
* http://benham.net/index.html <gecko(at)benham(dot)net> <>< *
* -------------------- * -----------------------------------------------*
* Debian Developer, Debian Project Secretary, Debian Webmaster *
* <gecko(at)debian(dot)org> <secretary(at)debian(dot)org> <lintian-maint(at)debian(dot)org> *
* <webmaster(at)debian(dot)org> <gecko(at)fortunet(dot)com> <webmaster(at)spi-inc(dot)org> *
=========================================================================

[added the OSI board to the CCs]

Will Lowe wrote:
>
> Obviously we can't write an OSD v.2 that includes a clause about
> _everything_ that anybody might ever write into a license. I think that
> the only reason the GPL stands up under so much debate is because it's
> been around for a while and we've got a general consensus about how we
> think the wording should be interpreted. Even then, we had big problems
> e.g. with Kde and Debian.
>
> How do we make what we mean by Free Software clear to people _before_ we
> have to argue about it? At the moment, it often seems to me that neither
> side is completely sure _what_ the topic of the argument is about.

I think that Free Software will probably always mean different things to
different people and as a result we will continue to argue about it. I
also think such discussions are generally healthy. The idea behind the
Open Source(TM) brand, at least as I understand it, is to indentify
software/licenses which the free software community considers free.
Given the divisions within that community, OSI chose to use the
community-developed DFSG as the basis for deciding what gets the Open
Source(TM) mark. This seems very reasonable to me.

Of course, whether a particular license meets the DFSG/OSD is often a
judgement call, but I consider the current OSI board quite qualified to
acts as judges/jury in this context. However, as things currently
stand, they also act as consultants to the organizations seeking
branding. Although they are certainly qualified to do that as well,
this makes it harder for them to be impartial judges. As an example of
this, consider the "affected code" language in the Apple license. As
used in the license, it is at least somewhat unclear what it means.
ESR's interpretation seems to be based on his consultations with Apple
in addition to what the license actually says. His role as consultant,
IMHO, affected his role as judge.

The solution to this seems pretty obvious. An OSI board member should
recuse himself from judging a license which he has consulted on.
Moreover, the proposed license should be discussed publicly so that the
judging board members can hear why some people don't think it meets the
OSD and why others think it does (a la MPL/NPL). If the parties can't
reach an agreement, the judging members decide whether or not it gets
the mark.

This obvious analogy could be extended to allow the community to change
the OSD if they think some non-free licenses are being approved. FWIW,
I don't think the ability to "impeach" board members would be needed.
If OSI blatantly ignores the community developed OSD (instead of just
misinterpreting it), they would fall from grace and the brand would
eventually become meaningless.

Just my .02,

-- Dean

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dean Brettle Computer Consulting http://www.brettle.com/ |
| Contract development and support of software and systems |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Will Lowe wrote:
> But here we get into feeping creaturism. We _don't_ have a solid
> definition of Free Software in the OSD or DPSG if we also want to include
> the stipulation that the code be useful for anything in particular.
>

This doesn't belong in the OSD, which is a definition of what it takes to
be free software. But as RMS is fond of pointing out, licenses which are
equal along the dimension of freeness can be more or less beneficial along
other dimensions. ("Beneficial" of course means "beneficial *for someone*"
and who the someone is (suits, hackers) affects ones evaluation of a
license.)

Havoc

Will Lowe writes:
> > > Admitting your mistakes, your bugs, your design flaws, whatever is a key
> > > element of free software development.
> > You are absolutely right. That is how hackers do things. It's
> > completely lacking in a business environment. If we were to be seen
> > as hackers, we would get the same regard that hackers have always
> > gotten: zero.
>
> Hmm. Hackers got some pretty big regard with Mozilla, the first
> time around. And the Halloween documents show some regard, too :). I
> thought this whole thing was about 'them' (suits) coming to 'us'(1) (Free
> Software), and not the other way around? Yeah, I understand the need to
> meet in the middle, but still ... I don't want to play in their backyard.
> They want to play in mine.

Right, and if they want to do so using Open Source(tm), they have to
abide by the rules. And that means "free [their] software".

--
-russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Dean Brettle writes:
> > Of course, whether a particular license meets the DFSG/OSD is often a
> > judgement call, but I consider the current OSI board quite qualified to
> > acts as judges/jury in this context. However, as things currently
> > stand, they also act as consultants to the organizations seeking
> > branding.
>
> I think you misinterpreted something. When Eris Raymond was said to
> have been "consulted", they really meant that the OSI board had
> certified. There was not a traditional "consulting" arrangement as
> most people would understand the word.
>

Sorry, I did not mean to imply that ESR was being paid as a consultant
or that he had signed a contract, etc. I just meant that I thought he
or other members of the board had advised Apple on what sorts of
licensing terms would result in certification. This is a Good Thing
(TM) in my opinion. The problem I see is that the same people who are
doing the advising on a license are also certifying the same license.
Combining the two roles can lead to certification based on information
not contained in the license itself. This can be as innocent as verbal
descriptions of what the terms mean or as ridiculous as "they seem like
nice blokes". I suspect the former has happened. I doubt the latter
ever will with the current board members. But I think separating the
roles would help prevent even the *perception* of it.

Just a suggestion,

-- Dean

+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Dean Brettle Computer Consulting http://www.brettle.com/ |
| Contract development and support of software and systems |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+

Dean Brettle writes:
> Of course, whether a particular license meets the DFSG/OSD is often a
> judgement call, but I consider the current OSI board quite qualified to
> acts as judges/jury in this context. However, as things currently
> stand, they also act as consultants to the organizations seeking
> branding.

I think you misinterpreted something. When Eris Raymond was said to
have been "consulted", they really meant that the OSI board had
certified. There was not a traditional "consulting" arrangement as
most people would understand the word.

--
-russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

Dean Brettle writes:
> The problem I see is that the same people who are doing the
> advising on a license are also certifying the same license.
> Combining the two roles can lead to certification based on
> information not contained in the license itself.

Sounds like good advice to me, but probably not necessary since we've
established a mailing list for discussing licenses. The motion
approved by the board read as follows:

To improve the process of evaluating proposed licenses as
OSD-compliant, we will establish an open mailing list where such
proposed licenses may be discussed. The names of the companies
associated with such licenses may be anonymized.

The list is at mailto:license-discuss-subscribe(at)opensource(dot)org

--
-russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

Lynn Winebarger writes:
> Frankly, though, given the attitudes evinced publicly by ESR and
> yourself (here), it's not clear to me that letting the situation
> remain as is is a worthwhile tradeoff for avoiding the spectacle of
> a dispute over the mark.

Been there, done that, it wasn't worth it. Ask the SPI board for the
URL to the results of the community consultation performed last year
(I don't know the URL). Basically the results were "SPI looks like a
bunch of idiots", "OSI looks like a bunch of idiots", and "SPI and OSI
look like a bunch of idiots".

Nobody on either board is eager to hoe that row again. Non-cooperation
is a non-possibility.

--
-russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

On Sat, Apr 10, 1999 at 08:02:36PM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > It's just a little bit difficult to take it on good faith that the OSI
> > board are essentially great blokes and will just do everything right,
> > so don't you worry about that now. I apologise for being untrusting.
> I expect that you'll find we make mistakes. Nobody's perfect. But if
> you look at the track record of the board members, I think you'll find
> a long string of consistent support for libre software. History matters.

*shrug* Having your heart in the right place just *is not enough*.

What you're saying here is: look, I'm sorry but we can't be anymore
open than we already are, so you can't help us. Oh, and we don't have
all that much time to work on this. But don't worry, everything'll be
fine. Trust me.

The whole point of having an open organisation is that anyone can
help. You only get to use the `So do it yourself' excuse if we *can*
do it ourselves, and the only way we can do that -- the only way we'd
*want* to do that -- is if you're an open organisation.

> > Admitting your mistakes, your bugs, your design flaws, whatever is a key
> > element of free software development.
> You are absolutely right. That is how hackers do things. It's
> completely lacking in a business environment. If we were to be seen
> as hackers, we would get the same regard that hackers have always
> gotten: zero.

You keep repeating this assertion, and I keep being unimpressed by it.

Watch: ``You are absolutely right. Giving away the source code is how
hackers do things. It's completely lacking in a business environment. If
we were to be seen as hackers, we would get the same regard that hackers
have always gotten: zero.''

So gee, we'd better stop trying to convince companies to follow the OSD
with their products, hadn't we?

Or should I just go with the subtext here and make snide remarks about this
is what OSI are already doing?

Feh.

You're already going against suits' preconceived notions. Sure, be gentle
with them an' all, but, well, spare the rod and spoil the child and all
the rest of it.

The idea here is to get suits to join the hacker culture, at least to some
extend. Giving up on important bits of it just because they might frown
a little at you isn't the way to go.

> > Look. I'm convinced, you do care. But from the opensource pages, from
> > public response posted to slashdot, and from the rumour mill you just
> > don't look like you're doing anything about it.
> You don't see the duck's feet paddling, either. OSI has *got* to look
> like a duck -- calm and unruffled on top, and paddling like crazy
> underneath. It's the only way we can function.

Yeah, great, but you're not even getting your own analogy.

OSI has to look calm and unruffled to the people throwing it crumbs from
the shore. It ought to look like it's paddling like crazy to the fishies
underneath though.

It doesn't.

> > Then add a rider "Please mail the President concerning most matters at
> > president(at)opensource(dot)org(dot) If you need to contact the whole board, mail
> > board(at)opensource(dot)org", and change "mail us" to "mail the OSI President".
> I'd rather have one person in the front line. I don't want a
> gazillion people mailing the whole board.

Fine. So do what I just said. Or make the language clearer that people
should contact Eric first.

> > I can understand that you, personally, might have better things to work
> > on. I can't understand why you're willing to just palm it off with a
> > "there's too many to list; go away kid, you bother me". That's not the
> > way free software people respond to feature requests.
> The way free software people respond to feature requests is "send code."

Then try getting into the habit where that's the *first* thing you say,
not "It's too hard".

So may we? Can I take this as a real offer, and forward it to the folks at
debian-legal so we can do this?

Cheers,
aj

--
Anthony Towns <aj(at)humbug(dot)org(dot)au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Anthony Towns writes:
> The whole point of having an open organisation is that anyone can
> help. You only get to use the `So do it yourself' excuse if we *can*
> do it ourselves, and the only way we can do that -- the only way we'd
> *want* to do that -- is if you're an open organisation.

Who was ever stopping you from contributing?

> > > Admitting your mistakes, your bugs, your design flaws, whatever is a key
> > > element of free software development.
> > You are absolutely right. That is how hackers do things. It's
> > completely lacking in a business environment. If we were to be seen
> > as hackers, we would get the same regard that hackers have always
> > gotten: zero.
>
> You keep repeating this assertion, and I keep being unimpressed by it.

I know.

> The idea here is to get suits to join the hacker culture, at least to some
> extend. Giving up on important bits of it just because they might frown
> a little at you isn't the way to go.

And who is doing that? Not us.

> > The way free software people respond to feature requests is "send code."
>
> So may we? Can I take this as a real offer, and forward it to the folks at
> debian-legal so we can do this?

Who was ever stopping you?

--
-russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 04:36:56AM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Anthony Towns writes:
> > The whole point of having an open organisation is that anyone can
> > help. You only get to use the `So do it yourself' excuse if we *can*
> > do it ourselves, and the only way we can do that -- the only way we'd
> > *want* to do that -- is if you're an open organisation.
> Who was ever stopping you from contributing?

*sigh* The perils of trimming quotes. Go back and read the thread about
what this was in response to.

We can't help you fix your mistakes if you don't tell us what they are.
We can't help negotiate with Apple if we don't know what the problems with
the license are, or why they're there.

> > > > Admitting your mistakes, your bugs, your design flaws, whatever is a key
> > > > element of free software development.
> > > You are absolutely right. That is how hackers do things. It's
> > > completely lacking in a business environment. If we were to be seen
> > > as hackers, we would get the same regard that hackers have always
> > > gotten: zero.
> > The idea here is to get suits to join the hacker culture, at least to some
> > extend. Giving up on important bits of it just because they might frown
> > a little at you isn't the way to go.
> And who is doing that? Not us.

So, ummm, admitting your mistakes and openly discussing problems isn't an
important part of the hacker culture?

Or you're not giving up on it, and you are going to start actually
doing it?

> > > The way free software people respond to feature requests is "send code."
> > So may we? Can I take this as a real offer, and forward it to the folks at
> > debian-legal so we can do this?
> Who was ever stopping you?

I'd sent mails to Eric before, and just stopped getting responses when
I actually offered to help with either of these things. Half the time
it seems the only reason OSI board members bother to respond to these
things is when they're in a bad mood, and I guess I was just being too
polite and reasonable then.

And it's more effort than I could have been bothered with to find the
addresses of the other board members to get shrugged off by them too.

It's a bit hard to contribute when the only obvious way you can
contribute is to mail Eric and get ignored. That's one reason I want the
board's address to be obvious.

And I repeat: can I take this as a real offer? If the stuff does get
written, will OSI have the time to put it up. Or will you just chide us
off saying, yeah, we'll get around to it, but we just don't have time
right now to make too many changes to the website?

It's a serious question, and I again apologise, but I'm not willing to
take the answer I'd like, "yes", on faith.

Cheers,
aj

--
Anthony Towns <aj(at)humbug(dot)org(dot)au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. PGP encrypted mail preferred.

``Like the ski resort of girls looking for husbands and husbands looking
for girls, the situation is not as symmetrical as it might seem.''

Coming into the discussion late, I will comment that, to the extent that OSI
performs its functions without consulting the community, it can't expect to
be considered representative of the community. Are you there to advance our
interests, or not? Like it or not, this is going to be a public process,
and you are not going to have a lot of leeway in spin control.

There were clear, obvious problems with the Apple license, for example.
Apparently those problems survived whatever consultation and certification
process OSI was involved in. It's all very well to say that people should
comment in private, but the public pronouncements of OSI were generated by a
private comment process, and had clear flaws.

Add to that the ego matters, pronouncements by ESR of his indispensibility,
shuffling personnel, and the ongoing arguments about the trademark, and
there are clearly problems with the concept of providing "one stop shopping"
for industry "certification of compliance." Which has never seemed to me to
be a very "open source" concept to start with.

I think a lot of us would just like to see OSI research more than certify.
I.e., if someone comes to you to wanting to know if their new license is
open source, resist the temptation to believe that it will be open source if
you rule ex cathedra it's so. Get input from the broader community, and
express your opinions as opinions. Otherwise your clients are apt to get a
nasty shock when they discover that the community you are trying to speak
for isn't necessarily having any.

Rob Levin

On Sun, Apr 11, 1999 at 01:29:02AM -0000, Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> Right, and if they want to do so using Open Source(tm), they have to
> abide by the rules. And that means "free [their] software".

Yeah, that's one fundamental prerequisite. But that will not mean that we
"choose to play with them", to stretch the analogy.

There is a lot more behind it: for example, good faith and mind share. I
wonder if the members of the OSI board read the "reflections about the past
year" by Frank Hecker from Mozilla. http://www.mozilla.org/mozilla-at-one.html
(It seems thatat least ESR read it, judging by the "open letter to
Microsoft" [[on that I better not comment]])

The point is that the company must make a good effort to go Free Software,
or the bazaar model doesn't work because of lack of participiation.

Marcus

--
`Rhubarb is no Egyptian god.' Debian http://www.debian.org finger brinkmd@
Marcus Brinkmann GNU http://www.gnu.org master.debian.org
Marcus(dot)Brinkmann(at)ruhr-uni-bochum(dot)de for public PGP Key
http://homepage.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/Marcus.Brinkmann/ PGP Key ID 36E7CD09

Robert Levin writes:
> Coming into the discussion late, I will comment that, to the extent that OSI
> performs its functions without consulting the community, it can't expect to
> be considered representative of the community.

I consider us to be following Jon Postel's model. Jon never seemed to
consult the community, but boy he sure listened.

> There were clear, obvious problems with the Apple license, for example.

Everybody has 20-20 vision in hindsight. I would point out that Bruce
was not removed from the board mailing list in a timely manner, and
received a copy of the APSL at the same time we did. If the problems
were so obvious, why didn't Bruce spot them in time?

> I think a lot of us would just like to see OSI research more than certify.
> I.e., if someone comes to you to wanting to know if their new license is
> open source, resist the temptation to believe that it will be open source if
> you rule ex cathedra it's so. Get input from the broader community, and
> express your opinions as opinions.

mailto:license-discuss-subscribe(at)opensource(dot)org .

--
-russ nelson <rn-sig(at)crynwr(dot)com> http://crynwr.com/~nelson
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.

On 11 Apr 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:

> Robert Levin writes:
> > Coming into the discussion late, I will comment that, to the extent that OSI
> > performs its functions without consulting the community, it can't expect to
> > be considered representative of the community.
>
> I consider us to be following Jon Postel's model. Jon never seemed to
> consult the community, but boy he sure listened.

You guys are not Jon Postel, and this is a different era. If you want to
try to follow that model, then you can expect wide public comment when the
results are not to people's liking.

> > There were clear, obvious problems with the Apple license, for example.
>
> Everybody has 20-20 vision in hindsight. I would point out that Bruce
> was not removed from the board mailing list in a timely manner, and
> received a copy of the APSL at the same time we did. If the problems
> were so obvious, why didn't Bruce spot them in time?

It's not my job to front for Bruce. The rest of us got our first indication
that Apple was going to try to float an open source license when we saw the
license, with Eric's glowing endorsement. And we commented on it. That was
present tense commenting on a license by the vast majority of people who did
not get to peek at the license "before the fact." That it was "20/20
hindsight" was not *our* doing.

> > I think a lot of us would just like to see OSI research more than certify.
> > I.e., if someone comes to you to wanting to know if their new license is
> > open source, resist the temptation to believe that it will be open source if
> > you rule ex cathedra it's so. Get input from the broader community, and
> > express your opinions as opinions.
>
> mailto:license-discuss-subscribe(at)opensource(dot)org .

It's a good concept. I'll be interested in seeing how it works, and I'll
certainly put my two cents in.

Rob Levin

For those who haven't the foggiest who Rob Levin is and why they should
care what he has to say, he's better known as lilo, the guy who runs the
OpenProjects irc network. Users of OPN are likely to almost universally
agree that lilo is one of the calmest, most rational, and all around
clued people out there and has earned the trust and respect of many,
myself included.

Even those who disagree with him often will tell you that his opinions
should not be ignored. He usually knows what he's talking about.

--
Joseph Carter <knghtbrd(at)debian(dot)org> Debian GNU/Linux developer
PGP: E8D68481E3A8BB77 8EE22996C9445FBE The Source Comes First!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something must be Done
This is Something
Therefore, This must be Done
-- The Thatcherite Syllogism

On 11 Apr 1999, Russell Nelson wrote:

> Lynn Winebarger writes:
> > Frankly, though, given the attitudes evinced publicly by ESR and
> > yourself (here), it's not clear to me that letting the situation
> > remain as is is a worthwhile tradeoff for avoiding the spectacle of
> > a dispute over the mark.
>
> Been there, done that, it wasn't worth it. Ask the SPI board for the
> URL to the results of the community consultation performed last year
> (I don't know the URL). Basically the results were "SPI looks like a
> bunch of idiots", "OSI looks like a bunch of idiots", and "SPI and OSI
> look like a bunch of idiots".

I find it interesting that you've seen this, yet the "open" SPI hasn't
published the results of this consultation as they promised.

I sure hope that SPI updats their web pages soon, and at the very least
removes the invitation to comment on the trademark dispute
<http://www.spi-inc.org/news/1998/19981124>. It would be a courtesy to
the public whoose coments SPI solicited to publish the comments, or at
least a summary, even if it is "People thought the dispute was damaging.
They disagreed about what we should do."

Not only has the dispute made both SPI and OSI look bad, but it has also
hurt the term "Open Source". I believe in both the philosophical
superiority of free software, and the business benefits of open
source software. In the best case, the two create an intertwining
synergy that has the potential to reshape the software world.
I'd like to be able to use the term "Open Source" without someone jumping
down my throat about the dispute. The continuing lethargy of SPI's
response to this is hurting everyone involved.

----
Richard L. Bullington III <rbulling(at)microstate(dot)com>
Chief Technology Officer, The Microstate Corporation
Phone: 703-591-9797 URL: http://www.microstate.com/
PGP key IDs: RSA: 0x93862305 DH/DSS: 0xDAC3028E

Richard Bullington <rbulling(at)microstate(dot)com> writes:
> > Been there, done that, it wasn't worth it. Ask the SPI board for the
> > URL to the results of the community consultation performed last year
> > (I don't know the URL). Basically the results were "SPI looks like a
> > bunch of idiots", "OSI looks like a bunch of idiots", and "SPI and OSI
> > look like a bunch of idiots".
>
> I find it interesting that you've seen this, yet the "open" SPI hasn't
> published the results of this consultation as they promised.
>
> I sure hope that SPI updats their web pages soon, and at the very least
> removes the invitation to comment on the trademark dispute
> <http://www.spi-inc.org/news/1998/19981124>. It would be a courtesy to
> the public whoose coments SPI solicited to publish the comments, or at
> least a summary, even if it is "People thought the dispute was damaging.
> They disagreed about what we should do."

There's been no progress on this so far; the latest news on the SPI
web pages is still an invitation to consult. Is anyone here able to
sort this out? If not, does anyone know who can sort it out?
--
__
\/ o\ paul(at)hedonism(dot)demon(dot)co(dot)uk http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/paul/ \ /
/\__/ Paul Crowley Upgrade your legacy NT machines to Linux /~\