Comments on: The OSI, Microsoft, and history

Groklaw wants the OSI to bash Microsoft and keep it out of the community. Fine. But it's directly inimical to why the OSI was set up in the first place.

[guysnir]

Strict view

I think that viewing the OSI and their approval process from a strict and formal point is problematic.

The points you make are valid, but are too strict in my opinion.
Just like the with debate over the "Open Source" term, where the OSI does not have a legal trademark for "Open Source", but still has the "power of the people" behind them to police the term (i.e. http://blogs.cnet.com/8301-13505_1-9743248-16.html?tag=head).

I think taking into account Microsoft's history and the potential implications of granting the OSI approval to their licenses (i.e. Chris DiBona's comments) is a fair thing to do.

Guy

[mondegreen]

Let's boil it down to this...

You're saying it's not right for OSI to treat Microsoft any differently from everybody else, and others (me included) are saying Microsoft is so different from everybody else, it's lunacy to treat them the same. Have I got it right?

[Matt Asay]

The question is not Microsoft or its motives

The question is whether the OSD means anything. I think it does. In the OSD, there is perfect freedom from Microsoft, as I argued later today, in response to a Michael Tiemann post. If we have to rely on judging others' intentions, we're in for a very long haul.

Are your intentions always good? I'm sure they're not always bad, but with the OSD I don't have to care. My trust is in the code, and the license that governs it. If I have the right to fork, I don't think it matters much what the company behind it does.

Do I trust Microsoft? No. But I don't have to if the code it licenses is OSI-certified, because then the code is free from Microsoft.

Could Microsoft use this as a publicity stunt or as some way to confuse customers as to the pedigree/licensing of its other code? Probably, but that's where the community (and the OSI as just one part of that larger community) is critical. You should be yelling and screaming to keep Microsoft in line. I think that's great, and I do it, too.

But the OSI-certification process is not the appropriate place to do this. The community is the best police officer. The OSI can lend moral pressure one way or another but is ultimately an arbiter of the OSD. If Microsoft submits a license that abides by the OSD, I see no moral reason to prohibit it from doing so, and the OSI from approving it.