4 ms·

OSI is asleep at the wheel on this one IMHO https://sdtimes.com/os/osi-weighs-in-on-open-source-licensing-conflict/ https://sdtimes.com/os/osi-weighs-in-on-open

OSI is asleep at the wheel on this one IMHO https://sdtimes.com/os/osi-weighs-in-on-open-source-licensing-conflict/ https://sdtimes.com/os/osi-weighs-in-on-open-source-licensin... I wonder why aren't they standardizing an open source license that prevents hyperscale cloud monetization by someone other than the originators? Don't OSS communities hold the cards here? it's just a change to license.txt, broad OSS adoption and it's a very different type of cloud (picture nuclear mushroom cloud)

kemitchell 7y ago
I no longer participate in the OSI process, largely for reasons laid out here: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/04/23/OSD-wontfix.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/04/23/OSD-wontfix.html I've read quite a bit from OSI stalwarts about why they take the positions they do, but I still don't understand them, and therefore shouldn't try to relate them. If I had to make one criticism of the OSI mailing list reaction to both my License Zero Reciprocal License, which later became Parity, and also MongoDB's Server Side Public License, it's that takes almost invariably focused on who was proposing the license, and the business model they seemed to have in mind, and ignored the extent to which older licenses had provided substantially the same functionality, as the basis of similar business models, before the software-as-a-service shift. It wasn't clear whether that was relevant criticism or not, since the process wasn't clear to begin with, and notional clarifications from OSI staff and eventually the board only muddied the waters. When literally anyone can object to a license, or block the approval process, for almost any reason, so long as they can phrase it in vague philosophical terms, then no new ideas in copyleft will ever get through. Even if those new ideas boil down to maintenance work on existing licenses now showing their age.
- _msw_ 7y ago
  Disclosure: I work for Amazon, but this is my personal opinion. I am also an individual member of the OSI, though I am not currently active in that community. I missed that you posted this, Kyle. I think that OSI is worse without your participation, and your criticisms hold a lot of weight for me. I hope that the new board, and all OSI members, will take what you wrote to heart, because stewardship does require caretaking, cultivation, and maintenance. I would love to see more productive discussions than the "how many angels fit on the head of a pin" that we so often see on mailing lists, and I think you're right that the Open Source Definition may not capture what is needed to help those discussions be more productive.

kemitchell 7y ago

I no longer participate in the OSI process, largely for reasons laid out here: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/04/23/OSD-wontfix.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/04/23/OSD-wontfix.html I've read quite a bit from OSI stalwarts about why they take the positions they do, but I still don't understand them, and therefore shouldn't try to relate them. If I had to make one criticism of the OSI mailing list reaction to both my License Zero Reciprocal License, which later became Parity, and also MongoDB's Server Side Public License, it's that takes almost invariably focused on who was proposing the license, and the business model they seemed to have in mind, and ignored the extent to which older licenses had provided substantially the same functionality, as the basis of similar business models, before the software-as-a-service shift. It wasn't clear whether that was relevant criticism or not, since the process wasn't clear to begin with, and notional clarifications from OSI staff and eventually the board only muddied the waters. When literally anyone can object to a license, or block the approval process, for almost any reason, so long as they can phrase it in vague philosophical terms, then no new ideas in copyleft will ever get through. Even if those new ideas boil down to maintenance work on existing licenses now showing their age.

_msw_ 7y ago
Disclosure: I work for Amazon, but this is my personal opinion. I am also an individual member of the OSI, though I am not currently active in that community. I missed that you posted this, Kyle. I think that OSI is worse without your participation, and your criticisms hold a lot of weight for me. I hope that the new board, and all OSI members, will take what you wrote to heart, because stewardship does require caretaking, cultivation, and maintenance. I would love to see more productive discussions than the "how many angels fit on the head of a pin" that we so often see on mailing lists, and I think you're right that the Open Source Definition may not capture what is needed to help those discussions be more productive.