appointed as an OSI board observer. Also new Program Manager position open.

I've been appointed as a board observer for OSI. To be clear, I do not back away from my earlier statements, I've just been called to help do something productive with them. While I'm only an observer, my goals continue to be:

• encourage and pursue an opening of OSI's board and processes and general transparency
• encourage accountability for board members and their delegates
• pursue some form of representative voting for electing board members and officers

Meanwhile, Microsoft has submitted the "Microsoft Permissive License" and the Microsoft Public License for approval. These are pretty short and well-written licenses and on their face look like the MPL and BSD licenses that they were fashioned after with the added benefit of patent terminations similar to those in the Apache and Gnu Public License. The only semi-credible technical objection I've seen are mainly that Microsoft isn't giving an explicit trademark license regarding that license name itself. However, if I understand correctly this exemption is granted by US trademark law . The same exemption covers book titles. For instance I can call a book "Professional JBoss Development", without trademark license because trademark law in the US and other countries permits this and thus it does not need to be explicitly granted. I would assume that I can make non-commercial statements like "License: Microsoft Public License" so long as I don't misuse the trademark deceptively. I'd assume that titling our software "Microsoft Public License Meldware" would run afoul (speaking purely hypothetically we do not use MsPL, we use LGPL) where noting that the software is released under the license as a factual statement on a webpage would not.

Less credible objections, in my opinion include those that Microsoft is collectively a "poopy-head". I think a potential one is that these are kind of "vanity licenses"; however, I think that the benefit of approval outweighs this. Basically Microsoft participating in open source and SCO's defeat means that we have won Saratoga. there is always a threat of "Embrace, Extend and Extinguish" but engagement (China) has shown more general success than estrangement (Cuba). Especially given the relative sizes of Open Source vs Microsoft/non-Open Source.

Still to win the ideological war, so to speak, OSI needs to continue to move in the direction of openness, accountability and representation (including representing more working slobs and less of the "gentry") in order to lend to its own legitimacy. I think there is a genuine desire to do so, albeit it is some ways off. The "silent majority" may not be saying anything, but they haven't been asked anything either.

At todays meeting I mostly just asked that the last meeting's minutes be approved and published. Guess what my main issue will be at the next meeting? Ultimately, the point is that secrecy is not the default state but a special circumstance that can be called for when needed. To represent all of open source....you must be open.

Meanwhile in the more mundane department of "get things done" OSI has posted the "Mr. Execution" position. Think of the OSI board as Picard, and the Program Manager as Riker. The board is to say "Number One, Engage." and he's supposed to "Make it so".

Technorati Tags: OSI open source Microsoft