To: license-discuss@opensource.org
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2007 10:00:57 -0700
Subject: Re: GPL-compatible vs Free  was Re: For Approval: Microsoft Permissive License
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11+cvs20060403
In-Reply-To: <46CC5CC2.30701@metatrontech.com>
Message-Id: <20070822170056.GH5496@linuxmafia.com>
References: <46C4C4E3.4010403@metatrontech.com> <46C53923.4060507@gatech.edu> <1187426094.18654.266.camel@workshop> <1187432586.5617.22.camel@nl-desktop> <Pine.WNT.4.64.0708180733180.3772@ddesktop> <46CB42C3.30303@gatech.edu> <Pine.WNT.4.64.0708211733310.1264@ddesktop> <46CBD7DD.9040207@metatrontech.com> <Pine.WNT.4.64.0708220749390.4052@ddesktop> <46CC5CC2.30701@metatrontech.com>

Quoting Chris Travers (chris@metatrontech.com):

> Although I think that the FSF's articulated definition of Free Software 
> is good (the 4 Basic Freedoms), you won't get any argument from me 
> beyond this.  My views on the FSF are well known here :-).

Remind me again, please:  Why are _we_, the subscribers of OSI
license-discuss, supposed to care?

> The OSI does seem to be more consistant in enforcing the standards than 
> the FSF,* in my view.  I just wish the standards were a bit higher :-)

OSI's standards are detailed on its Web pages.  Is there a particular
one that you believe it is failing?  If so, please cite a specific
instance of this deriliction of duty.

If, by contrast, you are simply voicing your wish that OSI have a
different mission from the one it's had to date (as I suspect is the
case), then you are wasting your time and ours, and should instead find
or create a group more to your liking.

This is not your blog, Mr. Travers.