[PROPOSAL] Open Source certification

Anthony Towns aj at azure.humbug.org.au
Sat Apr 10 04:47:06 UTC 1999

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.


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.


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.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.org.

Talk to the SPI membership (spi-private at lists.spi-inc.org /
spi-general at lists.spi-inc.org), or the SPI board (board at spi-inc.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

Thanks, by the way.


Anthony Towns <aj at humbug.org.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.''
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 434 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://spi-inc.org/pipermail/spi-general/attachments/19990410/96c33599/attachment.pgp

More information about the Spi-general mailing list