Open Source Initiative Certification for GPL 3.0]

> [superm40comcast.net - Thu Apr 20 19:17:07 2006]:
> 
> To Whom It May Concern:
> 
> Will the FSF seek OSI certification 
> (http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.
php#approval) upon 
> the release of GPL 3.0?  It is a requirement that the
license steward 
> (holder of copyright on the license document) initiate
the process (if 
> the steward wishes the license to be OSI-certified).

It's actually not a requirement that a license steward
initiates the
process, since GPLv2 is listed on their site, and FSF never
requested
certification.  

If OSI wishes to become relevant, it will stop certifying
licenses
simply because someone makes a request, and start seriously
working to
stop license proliferation.

-- 
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/319 - Release
Date: 4/19/2006

On Friday 21 April 2006 01:55, Matthew Seth Flaschen
forwarded,
Apparently on behalf of:  "Dave Turner via RT"
<licensingfsf.org> :
<some snippage around here somewhere>
>> Will the FSF seek OSI certification 
>> (http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.
php#approval) upon 
>> the release of GPL 3.0?  It is a requirement that
the license steward 
>> (holder of copyright on the license document)
initiate the process (if 
>> the steward wishes the license to be
OSI-certified).
>
>It's actually not a requirement that a license steward
initiates the
>process, since GPLv2 is listed on their site, and FSF
never requested
>certification.  
>
>If OSI wishes to become relevant, it will stop
certifying licenses
>simply because someone makes a request, and start
seriously working to
>stop license proliferation.
not everyone is the oss community agrees fully with the fsf
philosophy.

the gpl was available as a license choice for many top oss
projects but
yet was not selected by those developers. licensing freedom
and choice
is important and imho the osi is the glue that holds it all
together. 
anti proliferation is stifling freedom and limiting choice,
it seems lots is 
about power and prescription and little about true freedom.
(are major players yet supporting the proposed gpl v3?)
should we only have the gpl and nothing else? is bsd style
licensing true
freedom? 
is the gpl really "free" and does it impart true
freedom? 
Or is it actually restrictive and inhibits absolute freedom?
who is to decide
which is better, true and absolute freedom or restrictive,
prescriptive
freedom (because someone thinks it's good for the
"world")?

i truly dislike the stabs that the fsf often takes at the
osi both in public
and in private, sad that... because in truth both
organisations have a
rightfull place in the software industry and they are not at
opposing ends of
the spectrum and imho both are doing great and excellent
work (thx btw   )

only 1c (i'm sure someone else has at least a $)

:(

andre

Matthew Seth Flaschen writes:
 > If OSI wishes to become relevant, it will stop
certifying licenses
 > simply because someone makes a request, and start
seriously working to
 > stop license proliferation.

Obviously David missed my talk in Croatia at DORS/CLUB 2006
last week
explaining why there are so many open source licenses.

Yeah, the OSI is irrelevant because too many people are
asking it to
certify licenses.

Just like nobody goes to that restaurant anymore because
it's too
crowded.   http://www.quotedb
.com/quotes/1311

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
   | A computer without Python is
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | like a CPU
without memory:
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | it runs,
but you can't do
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | anything
useful with it.

On Apr 24, 2006, at 22:09PDT (CA), Russ Nelson wrote:
> Matthew Seth Flaschen writes:
>> If OSI wishes to become relevant, it will stop
certifying licenses
>> simply because someone makes a request, and start
seriously  
>> working to
>> stop license proliferation.
>
> Obviously David missed my talk in Croatia at DORS/CLUB
2006 last week
> explaining why there are so many open source licenses.
>
> Yeah, the OSI is irrelevant because too many people are
asking it to
> certify licenses.
>
> Just like nobody goes to that restaurant anymore
because it's too
> crowded.   http://www.quotedb
.com/quotes/1311

No need to fuel the fire here. Both FSF and OSI are
relevant. Dave  
doesn't really follow what the OSI does, in the same way
that the OSI  
board and followers often don't know the quiet and good
things that  
the FSF does.

--zak

Zak Greant writes:
 > No need to fuel the fire here. Both FSF and OSI are
relevant. Dave  
 > doesn't really follow what the OSI does,

It's not that Dave is ignorant of what the OSI does.  It's
that Dave
said something lacking in simple logic.  How can the OSI be
irrelevant
BECAUSE too many people are asking for license approvals?

-- 
--my blog is at    http://blog.russnelson.com
   | A computer without Python is
Crynwr sells support for free software  | PGPok | like a CPU
without memory:
521 Pleasant Valley Rd. | +1 315-323-1241       | it runs,
but you can't do
Potsdam, NY 13676-3213  |     Sheepdog          | anything
useful with it.

Russ Nelson scripsit:

> It's not that Dave is ignorant of what the OSI does. 
It's that Dave
> said something lacking in simple logic.  How can the
OSI be irrelevant
> BECAUSE too many people are asking for license
approvals?

I believe Matthew (not Dave) said the OSI is irrelevant
because too
many people are *getting* license approvals, not because
they are asking
for them.

-- 
John Cowan    cowanccil.org    http://ccil.org/~cowan
Knowledge studies others / Wisdom is self-known;      John
Cowan
Muscle masters brothers / Self-mastery is bone;      
cowanccil.org
Content need never borrow / Ambition wanders blind;   http://ccil.org/~cowan
Vitality cleaves to the marrow / Leaving death behind.   
--Tao 33 (Bynner)

John Cowan wrote:
> Russ Nelson scripsit:
> 
> 
>>It's not that Dave is ignorant of what the OSI
does.  It's that Dave
>>said something lacking in simple logic.  How can the
OSI be irrelevant
>>BECAUSE too many people are asking for license
approvals?
> 
> 
> I believe Matthew (not Dave) said the OSI is irrelevant
because too
> many people are *getting* license approvals, not
because they are asking
> for them.
> 
No, I didn't.  I'm the one who asked whether FSF would
submit the 
license.  Dave Turner said "If OSI wishes to become
relevant, it will 
stop certifying licenses simply because someone makes a
request."

-Matthew Flaschen
> [superm40comcast.net - Thu Apr 20 19:17:07 2006]:
> 
> To Whom It May Concern:
> 
> Will the FSF seek OSI certification 
> (http://www.opensource.org/docs/certification_mark.
php#approval) upon 
> the release of GPL 3.0?  It is a requirement that the
license steward 
> (holder of copyright on the license document) initiate
the process (if 
> the steward wishes the license to be OSI-certified).

It's actually not a requirement that a license steward
initiates the
process, since GPLv2 is listed on their site, and FSF never
requested
certification.  

If OSI wishes to become relevant, it will stop certifying
licenses
simply because someone makes a request, and start seriously
working to
stop license proliferation.

-- 
-Dave "Novalis" Turner
GPL Compliance Engineer
Free Software Foundation


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.4.4/319 - Release
Date: 4/19/2006

On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Matthew Seth Flaschen wrote:
>>> It's not that Dave is ignorant of what the OSI
does.  It's that Dave
>>> said something lacking in simple logic.  How
can the OSI be irrelevant
>>> BECAUSE too many people are asking for license
approvals?
>> 
>> 
>> I believe Matthew (not Dave) said the OSI is
irrelevant because too
>> many people are *getting* license approvals, not
because they are asking
>> for them.
>
> No, I didn't.  I'm the one who asked whether FSF
would submit the license. 
> Dave Turner said "If OSI wishes to become
relevant, it will stop certifying 
> licenses simply because someone makes a request."

Then the FSF could easily prove OSI's irrelevance by
submitting a license 
and having it approved.  

 	Brian

Matthew Seth Flaschen scripsit:

> No, I didn't.  I'm the one who asked whether FSF
would submit the 
> license.  Dave Turner said "If OSI wishes to
become relevant, it will 
> stop certifying licenses simply because someone makes a
request."

My apologies.  In any case, the rest of my point stands: the
alleged
irrelevance is connected with granting approvals.

-- 
John Cowan    http://ccil.org/~cowan 
cowanccil.org
'Tis the Linux rebellion / Let coders take their place,
The Linux-nationale / Shall Microsoft outpace,
We can write better programs / Our CPUs won't stall,
So raise the penguin banner of / The Linux-nationale. 
--Greg Baker

Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Matthew Seth Flaschen wrote:
>>>> It's not that Dave is ignorant of what the
OSI does.  It's that Dave
>>>> said something lacking in simple logic. 
How can the OSI be irrelevant
>>>> BECAUSE too many people are asking for
license approvals?
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe Matthew (not Dave) said the OSI is
irrelevant because too
>>> many people are *getting* license approvals,
not because they are asking
>>> for them.
>>
>> No, I didn't.  I'm the one who asked whether FSF
would submit the 
>> license. Dave Turner said "If OSI wishes to
become relevant, it will 
>> stop certifying licenses simply because someone
makes a request."
> 
> Then the FSF could easily prove OSI's irrelevance by
submitting a 
> license and having it approved.  

Or prove relevance by having it rejected 

geir