On 2/25/2020 12:16 PM, Eric Schultz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:02 AM Pamela Chestek <pam...@chesteklegal.com > <mailto:pam...@chesteklegal.com>> wrote: > > > I don't see the point of these contortions. Why not just write a > license > that says "everyone case use the software except Amazon." It > suspect it > would be an enforceable license. Why are you trying to fit it > under the > umbrella of "open source" too? > > Sure, that's an enforceable license, but it's not FOSS. Lots of people > value FOSS but are also concerned about other issues in the world. If > they feel their only option is "ethical source", they're going to > convince themselves that's an acceptable choice. We need a set of > options, licensing or otherwise, that uphold the OSD and FSD and allow > them to make some different on the other issues in the world. I'm > trying to explore the licensing topic here. > > Eric > You've assumed your premise to be true, that an ethical license must be FOSS, but still haven't explained why. You also say "If they feel their only option is 'ethical source', they're going to convince themselves that's an acceptable choice." What's wrong with that? Isn't that your goal?
You claim to want a license that upholds the OSD yet the ethical license proposals are fundamentally irreconcilable with the non-discrimination values in the OSD. If the response is "the OSD therefore is wrong," then you actually don't want a license that upholds the OSD. Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
