[Linux-aus] Who defines Open Source?

Martin Pool mbp at sourcefrog.net
Wed Feb 8 08:28:02 UTC 2006

On  8 Feb 2006, Del <del at babel.com.au> wrote:
> The debian-legal folks have always had their own definitions, which differ
> slightly from the OSI definitions.  In any case I would personally object
> to any product-associated team defining what is Open Source and what is not
> -- for example, what if the debian-legal team just arbitrarily decided that
> anything packaged in a competing distribution was not Open Source, for their
> own personal reasons? 

That would be a blatant violation of the definition they are trying to
apply, so it seems fairly unlikely.  But if it did happen, people would
just stop respecting their opinion and they would become irrelevant.

One might equally well ask what would happen if OSI suddenly started
making arbitrarily bad judgements influenced by the corporate or
personal interests of their board.  The outcome would be similar.

Their role is similar to that of Choice or Mietta's: if they start
publishing opinions you consider unreliable, you can safely ignore them.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://lists.linux.org.au/pipermail/linux-aus/attachments/20060208/20d15834/attachment-0001.pgp 

More information about the linux-aus mailing list