Tagged: Open Source Initiative Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • Roberto Galoppini 3:27 pm on April 15, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Open Source Initiative, , , , vendor lock-in   

    The Open Source Road Ahead – About Put an End to Vendor Lock-in 

    OSI logoFew days after my blog post about OSI’s possible future,  OSI wrote a second statement on the CPTN transaction, somehow reaffirming my concerns about a maybe too narrowed view on software patents. Now that even Groaklaw gave up with software patents  - rightly in my opinion – leaving it to IT giants and patent-trolls, will OSI fight software patents as a whole?

    While waiting to understand how OSI will behave in this respect, we might move on other topics, like how OSI could fulfill its mission.

    (More …)

  • Roberto Galoppini 11:25 am on March 31, 2011 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , Open Source Initiative, , ,   

    OSI: The Open Source Road Ahead 

    Having been interviewed recently, among other topics, about my take on how FSF and OSI might rethinking their roles in the next future, I want to share some thoughts around how OSI could move in the years to come.

    OSI logoChanging OSI is now possible, and I am personally taking the chance by joining the OSI Governance working group, chaired by Simon Phipps. While the  future governance of the OSI is still under discussion, here I’d like to throw some ideas around on what OSI could do about things like raising funds, software patents and “Open Core”.

    (More …)

  • Roberto Galoppini 3:28 pm on March 20, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , BrucePerens, , , , , Open Source Initiative, , Patrice-EmmanuelSchmitz   

    Open Source Licenses: EUPL got OSI Approval, but Still Doesn’t Show Up 

    The Open Source Initiative board, after visiting the European Commission, has finally approved the European Union Public license on the 4th of March.

    The EUPL 1.1 – the revisited version of the EUPL 1.0 including recommended modifications resulting from the OSI discussion – is supported by  the EUPL community. Stakeholders can share opinions and pose questions through the EUPL forums and blog.

    (More …)

    • P-E Schmitz 5:59 pm on March 21, 2009 Permalink

      Hi Roberto,
      Publishing legal instruments with equal value in all EU languages and letting European courts work with it, is really “business as usual” for the European Institutions: Community Law counts million pages, valid in 22 or 23 languages. In case of uncertainty, national courts may ask the European Court of Justice to clarify. It is a simple fact that the GPL V2 and V3 (relative) failure is that FSF was unable to deal with linguistic diversity (that they consider as a major risk; it is true that they do not benefit from a supra-national court to help). Having said that, the EUPL has other merits: the license complies with European flavour of copyright, information to consumer, warranty and liability. The most important however, is that the intention of EUPL promoters is not to compete with the GPL or any other license. The objective is long term: to bring more administrations to license their source. We are at the early beginning of this, but there are currently substantial move in this direction and several Member States consider policies to license under EUPL. Last, the EUPL has a compatibility list (with GPLV2 and other copyleft licenses). This is also unique: it would be interesting to try solving license proliferation through “mutual recognition” between a club of equivalent licenses, sharing the same compatibility list: this would also provide more freedom to developers. Who has comment on this idea? It is a fact – unfortunately – that “compatibility” is seen by the FSF as “compatibility in the one-way direction of GPL, GPLv3 and AGPLv3”. The reverse situation is not even imagined by the FSF, (and by the way, their current web site ignores totally the EUPL – remember Mahatma Gandhi: “First they ignored us…”). A last word about the “biased” comparison I did between the EUPL and GPLv3 during the EOLE event in Paris: Of course you can say it was biased! (since I am a EUPL advocate), but please do not take my comparison as an attack “against” the GPLv3: I just report facts: GPLv3 is about 3 times longer, is full of technical details, is complex (even for a lawyer) and as it is officially valid in English only it may not be the most persuasive license for a German or French administration. Could anyone object? Now if you are happy with GPLv3 and AGPLv3 no problems, go on!

    • Roberto Galoppini 9:55 pm on March 21, 2009 Permalink

      Hi Patrice-Emmanuel,

      I am glad you joined the conversation. I think that having a license (EUPL or not) translated in all European languages is a great thing.

      What I object to the EC is that you decided to go your way, instead of participating the GPLv3 process, managed with a public and transparent consultation.

      What I object to you is your adversarial approach. I believe that opening to FSF licenses is your concern, since you are trying to convince European public administrations to use the EUPL.

      Show them that is convenient, that they can still stand on the shoulders of giants, and try harder to consider GPL, and software licensed under the GPL, as your best friend, not a foe.

      My two European cents

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc