Bruce, I am disappointed to hear your complaint about the recent changes to the 
OSI license discussion and review process. I don't see that as an offense to 
you. I am sorry you are taking it so poorly. 
 

But now, perhaps, you can appreciate my disappointment when I first learned, 
several months ago, that you have been representing OSI in their open standards 
activities. There are several others on this list (including me) who are more 
knowledgeable and experienced than you in this arena. For example, Scott 
Peterson is an expert at this, and his skills at this are more than those of 
the two of us put together – despite the fact that I occasionally consider his 
opinions to be absurd, and vice versa. It is important for OSI to let us know 
who speaks on their behalf. That is another reason why I liked Pam's recent 
email.

 

As for list moderation, I believe that this and other open source lists go way 
too far when they impose strict codes of conduct. I am an even greater fan of 
free speech than I am of free software. If you send too many emails, that is 
why God created the delete key. If anyone thinks that words like "absurd" 
deserve censure, then it is they who need a spine implant.

 

I also want to commend Pam Chestek for her calm and reasoned explanation of 
OSI's new license approval process. It is far more helpful than the mysterious 
processes that preceded it. I wish OSI success with this new protocol.

 

Best, /Larry

This email is licensed under  <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/> 
CC-BY-4.0. Please copy freely.  

_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org

Reply via email to