On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:29 PM John Cowan <co...@ccil.org> wrote: > > What the OP is proposing is *not* restrictions. The license remains free > and open source. Since all licenses require that they be preserved intact > in all modified copies, it is a way to use the license as a virus to spread > the opinions of the licensor, just as the various FSF licenses do. >
However, it might make the license fail OSD #5. In jurisdictions prone to libel and/or defamation lawsuits, developers might feel they are prevented from using code that includes a statement which might prove actionable in their jurisdiction as creating a public derivative would make them a party to the statement. Placing matters of opinion about ideology in a preamble is one thing. Immortalising potentially actionable statements or implications about individuals and legal entities is quite another. > My concern with it is that license texts are potentially immortal. > Suppose the preamble says "John Cowan is a bad, nasty guy and we hate him; > please avoid him." Well, in ten years the licensor's opinion of me may > change, and then what? And in 100 years, who'll know or care who John > Cowan was? > I also share the concern several have expressed about the immutability of the condemnation. There is no mechanism described for reconciliation and forgiveness to be expressed. Simon (personally)
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
