Fortes Marcelo wrote:

>
> I think it is a "bit" radical approach. To me "Open Source" is a therm
> that could be used for a lot of different and not OSI approved licenses,
> instead of a "Trade Mark" that could be only used with the OSI blessing,
> from what I can see in Tiemann's point of view Firebird is not "Open
> Source" software not because the FB used License does not follow OSI
> requirements (since it is MPL) but because it is not OSI approved once
> nobody spend the time/money to make it approved. That's a pity IMHO.
> Looks like to me that OSI are not happy enough to try to explain the
> difference between "Free Software" from "Open Source Software".

You're wrong.

1. Mozilla Public License (MPL) *IS* OSI approved license, in fact, it
was one from the first approved ones.

2. Because both, IPL and IDPL *are* in fact MPL, just with little bit
different wording for "initial developer" and without special provisions
related to specific companies, their approval would be pure formality.
Hence both could be considered as OSI approved.

3. Open Source *is* a registered trademark of OSI, so they are obliged
to defend it against abuse or doomed to lose the mark. OSI outlined what
is Open Source as any software that is distributed under OSI approved
license. Fair, clear and simple enough for anyone to follow.

best regards
Pavel Cisar
IBPhoenix