It's not really clear to my why they want the OSI approval (see here for their argument on the point [opensource.org]). They are free to use whatever license they want, they don't need the approval of the OSI, and yet they paid lawyers to help get OSI approval.
The license itself goes against the OSI standard [opensource.org] (as I see it), because it restricts the way the software can be used. That is, certain products cannot be built using source code with this license.
You will never really have the context when it comes to political in0fighting. Best you leave aside opinions of that stuff. The interesting question is: why is the new license not just bad, but intolerably bad in his opinion. Or is it just the perceived perversion of process?
I'd love it Bruce were to pop in and enlighten us on that.
I don't know what Bruce Peren's opinion is, but after reading the license, I think it is well intentioned but badly written, probably because the author is a lawyer and decided to write it from scratch rather than improving on an already existing license. A better approach would have been to start from the AGPL, and add the conditions protecting users' data from being hijacked by withholding of encryption keys, which seems to be the key problem this license sets out to solve.
The wages of sin are high but you get your money's worth.
Context (Score:5, Insightful)
The context of the resignation seems to be in response to being called out:
And the "FUD" in question was this (further down, in response to Bradley Kuhn siding with Bruce):
I'm inclined to say I agree with the call-out.
Re:Context (Score:5, Insightful)
The license itself goes against the OSI standard [opensource.org] (as I see it), because it restricts the way the software can be used. That is, certain products cannot be built using source code with this license.
Re: (Score:2)
You will never really have the context when it comes to political in0fighting. Best you leave aside opinions of that stuff. The interesting question is: why is the new license not just bad, but intolerably bad in his opinion. Or is it just the perceived perversion of process?
I'd love it Bruce were to pop in and enlighten us on that.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know what Bruce Peren's opinion is, but after reading the license, I think it is well intentioned but badly written, probably because the author is a lawyer and decided to write it from scratch rather than improving on an already existing license. A better approach would have been to start from the AGPL, and add the conditions protecting users' data from being hijacked by withholding of encryption keys, which seems to be the key problem this license sets out to solve.