Philip Hands <p...@hands.com> wrote: [...] > So whatever we might think about the merits of the "Open Source" term, > it hardly seems like a step forward to render such references into > hanging links just at the point where policy makers are starting to get > the message.
I agree with Phil. That is why my preference is for OSI to merge into a continuing non-zombie group that could maintain web links and so on. > Much better to try to ensure that that licenses list is actually sane, > which is something we may be able to do something about if we affiliate, [...] There is no evidence for that yet. It's vapourware, isn't it? Or is there some secret OSI-promises-to-reform-in-consultation-with-us part of the proposed affiliation terms that I've missed? Even worse, this sounds like the sort of constructive engagement nonsense which is failing to change Big Oil, Big Power and things like that (= no change for them, except they have access to supposedly-ethical/activist investment funds). This is backwards. Could interested debian developers go help reform OSI and then, once it's reformed, suggest that the project affiliates? [...] > P.S. I encourage people to respond to the consultation mentioned above. > It actually looks pretty good. [...] I agree with Phil. Maybe some ideas/tips will be thrown around on http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/fsfe-uk/ before the consultation closes. Regards, -- MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op. http://koha-community.org supporter, web and library systems developer. In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html Available for hire (including development) at http://www.software.coop/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-project-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1rylm8-0004zd...@petrol.towers.org.uk
