Comments on: OSI Approval: Open Source Initiatives approves GPLv3!

By: ][ stefano maffulli » More about licenses, Microsoft and OSI

][ stefano maffulli » More about licenses, Microsoft and OSI — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:28:21 +0000

[…] I’m having problems submitting comments to Roberto’s blog, so I continue the discussion with him here, after his comment […]

By: Roberto Galoppini

Roberto Galoppini — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 15:53:34 +0000

Stefano,

a license “technically free” is a free license, and as a matter of fact Microsoft’s channel is the biggest in the IT world. What if only a tiny fraction of them is going to deliver software distributed under a microsoft-approved-free-license?

About the patent issue, as far as I understand, either if OSI will eventually approve their licenses or not, we have to cope with it anyway.

Show me the deal we’ll get, if any, if those licenses won’t be approved _because_ submitted by Microsoft.

By: ][ stefano maffulli » There is much more than a license

][ stefano maffulli » There is much more than a license — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 07:42:45 +0000

[…] Nobody can disagree with Roberto here: if you look at licenses only then there is no spirit to take care of, only check its language against the requirements of the OS definition (of the four freedoms, fwiw). Regarding the Microsoft licenses, FSFE has already blessed them when they were announced. […]

By: Roberto Galoppini

Roberto Galoppini — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 16:34:02 +0000

Martin,

I’ll tell you why Eric Raymond opinion is dangerous to the open source ecosystem at large: there are thousands Microsoft’s partners out there, if OSI will allow them to produce (also) open source software is an opportunity, may be even a huge one. If not?

Besides that, judging licenses’ spirit is a stallmanian attitude, stated by the FSF website, and I really hope to not see things like that happening by the OSI headquarter as well.. Again, licenses are really just licenses, therefore an opportunity not a thread, a medium toward a goal: distributing open source software. If the idea is to keep Microsoft out of the “open source thing”, that is likely what Eric wants, I don’t see the deal.

Do you?

By: Martin Peacock

Martin Peacock — Sat, 08 Sep 2007 10:58:44 +0000

You’re right, Roberto, a license is a license. But the objective behind the license is not only to prevent abuse of the spirit, but to defend itself from abuse. If the community at large feels that the OSD is being abused, then it can only be the OSD that is at fault.