It has been a while since I "fisked" Jason Matusow, Microsoft's open source blogger.
I'm not certain I'm going to do it here, although he might disagree. What I'm looking for is an explanation. I'll leave the fisking up to you.
In a September 15 item, Jason praises the Open Source Initiative and then damns them without explanation.
The subject, as always, is licensing, and OSI's efforts to reduce the number of licenses. But the OSI also wants to set boundaries, so that the term open source continues to have meaning.
Matusow is full of praise for the idea, the intent, even aspects of the implementation. Then he throws out this gem:
Right now they are not neutral, nor are they measured in their response to certain issues.
What he seems to be demanding is that the OSI and Microsoft agree on a common definition for open that both sides can live with. Otherwise, he implies, the OSI isn't "stepping up."
But would an OSI which accepted what Microsoft, and other proprietary companies, want to deem "open" be stepping up or knuckling under?
That's what I'd like to know.