[TAG] (forw) Re: About Intalio

[Rick Moen]

I'm getting that feeling again, of bandying words with a sharp customer
who's hoping I'm either not too bright or easily confused.  I hope I'm
just being cynical.


----- Forwarded message from Ismael Ghalimi <ghalimi at intalio.com> -----

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:46:38 -0800
From: Ismael Ghalimi <ghalimi at intalio.com>
To: TAG <tag at lists.linuxgazette.net>
To: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
Subject: Re: About Intalio

Rick,

I'm not sure I follow you. Isn't GAP an "attribution clause"?

And isn't the OSI currently reviewing proposals for acceptable attribution
clauses that could be added to MPL-like licenses?

What we've stated in our press release is that we will make an Open Source
release of our entire BPMS product, and I truly hope that the OSI will have
approved acceptable attribution terms by then. If not, we might use
different OSI-approved licensing terms in the interim, but I'm not sure
customers nor developers would benefit from the confusion.

Please let me know what we should do to clarify the issue.

Best regards
-Ismael

----- End forwarded message -----
----- Forwarded message from Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> -----

Date: Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:59:26 -0800
From: Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com>
To: TAG <tag at lists.linuxgazette.net>
To: Ismael Ghalimi <ghalimi at intalio.com>
Subject: Re: About Intalio

Quoting Ismael Ghalimi (ghalimi at intalio.com):

> Rick,
> 
> I'm not sure I follow you. Isn't GAP an "attribution clause"?

I'm sorry if I was unclear.  It is inaccurate to state that Italio's
press release had claimed the eventual release would be under merely
MPL + _some_ "attribution" clause, when in fact the press release had 
specified in particular MPL + GAP.  Further, the implication of your quoted
sentence in the context of the sentence immediately after is that
Intalio would use whatever OSI approves, and that is, however, not what
your press release actually said.

Meanwhile, you are creating the impression that MPL + GAP is open
source, i.e., has been judged compliant with OSD, when that is not the
case.

> And isn't the OSI currently reviewing proposals for acceptable
> attribution clauses that could be added to MPL-like licenses?

That is true in the minimal sense that it is inviting discussion that
might lead to a proposed licence.

> What we've stated in our press release is that we will make an Open
> Source release of our entire BPMS product, and I truly hope that the
> OSI will have approved acceptable attribution terms by then.

The press release I read you claimed something rather more specific than
that.

> If not, we might use different OSI-approved licensing terms in the 
> interim, but I'm not sure customers nor developers would benefit from
> the confusion.
> 
> Please let me know what we should do to clarify the issue.

In my view, you should cease referring to licensing not approved by the
OSI Board as "open source".  At the bare minimum, you should qualify any
mention of covered software being "open source" with a clarification
that its licence hasn't been OSI certified.

Please note that this is also commentator David Berlind's view.

-- 
Cheers,                        My pid is Inigo Montoya.  You kill -9    
Rick Moen                      my parent process.  Prepare to vi.
rick at linuxmafia.com

----- End forwarded message -----