Pot, kettle...

Posted May 28, 2010 8:09 UTC (Fri) by agrover (guest, #55381)
In reply to: Pot, kettle... by khim
Parent article: Google asks for delay in WebM license consideration

Well the OSI is the only ones who can declare a license is an OSI-approved (meeting their Open Source Definition) open source license. This gives "OSI-approved open source license" the weight and backbone I think you were right in mentioning that just "open source license" doesn't have on its own.

Where exactly Google says OSI-approved?

Posted May 28, 2010 16:19 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

"OSI mark" is like "organic food" mark. And like with organic food you can have open source without mark and/or "approved" license which is not open source at all (errare humanum est). Yet OSI members claim that "WebM is not currently open source" just because they have not approved the license. This is arrogance to rival Google's and it can only be justified if the support for OSI mark is absolutely unanimous. As the discussion shows it's not even close to being true.