On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 3:51 PM Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote:
> On 3/17/20 6:14 PM, Tobie Langel wrote: > > If OSI is to be the custodian of open source, it needs to be > representative of the open source community at large. Not based on a winner > takes model, which is, by definition, not representative. > > Sure, but Ethical Software isn't Open Source. That's what we keep telling > you. If you want to prevent "unethical" entities from using your software, > you are separating yourself from the Open Source community. > > A lot of open source practitioners would disagree with that statement. Who makes the rules? Ultimately the community does. Not the OSI. Of course, the OSI can decide to ignore the broader open source community by deciding that only the community that agrees with its definition of open source is relevant. That seems like an untenable position, however. And it won't do anything from preventing others to think of what they are doing as open source and call it that way. Frankly, that would be quite a big footgun. --tobie
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
