Clash of the Open Standards

Rollie Hawk writes "Open Source Initiative (OSI) and Computer Associates (CA) may agree that some housework is needed with open source licensing, but they may not be able to reconcile their views on the best solution. CA has a couple of possible solutions in mind for its proposed Template License. This license will likely be based on either Sun's Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) its own Trusted Open Source License. OSI, which does not favor corporate-centered licensing, opposes such moves on a number of grounds. Specifically, they point out that CDDL is not GPL-compatible. While acknowledging the problems with license proliferation, OSI prefers a solution involving stricter criteria (including that approved licenses must me non-duplicative, clear and understandable, and reusable) and is proposing a "three-tier system in which licenses are classified as preferred, approved or deprecated." While there is no legal requirement for any open-source license to be approved by OSI, it is currently common practice for developers to get their license blessing from it."

Re:Licensing Open Source: Is this really necessary

[smittyoneeach]

1. In your mailbox, you discover a subpoena.
2. ????
3. (Profit)!!!

The great thing about standards...

[00squirrel]

...is there are so many to chose from!

I Propose a 2 Tier system for TLAs

[tubs]

For example, a TLA should be registered and if there are two TLA that are the same, then they should have a .x after them, where x is a number.

For example

OSI stands for Open Systems Interconnect, and OSI.1 stands for Open Source Inititive
PSP stands for "Paint Shop Pro" and PSP.1 stands for Play Station Portable.

Okay, it defeats the purpose of TLAs by making them FLA.2* (Five letter abbrieviations) but hey it's all too confusing!

* FLA stands for Finance and Leasing Association, and FLA.1 is Fair Labor Association.