Interesante los cuestionamientos de Google hacia OSI mencionadas en este artÃculo: http://www.infoworld.com/d/open-source/googles-webm-license-could-undermine-... ........................ Please hold off on submitting this while we determine certain compatibility issues internally at Google. ... I would also point out that we're uncomfortable with making license proliferation worse and, in the event we do submit it, we will want a couple of changes to how OSI does licenses: 1) We will want a label explicitly deterring the use of the license. 2) We will want the bod (board of directors) list archives open for any discussions of webm. We are not comfortable with OSI being closed. 3) We need to know OSI's current corporate status. ........................ Y la respuesta de Perens: http://www.crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?17:msp:1024:dphgapeaeaahenjiboco ........................ Subject: Re: WebM license third-party submission From: Bruce Perens <[email protected]> Date: Wed, 26 May 2010 14:55:49 -0700 Chris DiBona wrote:
1) We will want a label explicitly deterring the use of the license.
OSI has an existing process for this.
2) We will want the bod list archives open for any discussions of webm. We are not comfortable with OSI being closed.
I think you aren't familiar with the way this really works. Unfortunately, most of the OSI board don't want to be involved in license approval. This seems odd to those of us who think that license approval is OSI's only legitimate task, but that's why people like Webmink are trying to reform OSI from inside. The effect of the above is that the discussion is carried out right here on a public list, and then Russ makes a recommendation based on it, and the board rubber-stamps that. So, IMO you are already seeing the discussion. ........................ -- Pablo Manuel Rizzo ------------------------------- http://pablorizzo.com -------------------------------