We operate in the realm of words, and words matter, words help clarify. Analogy: Food labels can indicate a product to be Organic, Free Trade, Gluten-free, Kosher, Poisonous, etc. Each of these labels indicate something different. No one insists that in order to be considered Free Trade that a product must also be Organic. That erodes meaning and confuses the marketplace. A product might be traded fairly and not get the certification. A product might be gluten-free and poisonous. Don't consume that product, even if you are gluten intolerant. It's not good for you.
Licenses that have been approved by the OSI as having complied with OSD are Open Source. We all get that. Separately from OSI a group of people created a separate concept called Ethical Source and they created a separate definition https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/ which is also separate from the OSD. Thankfully they make it very clear that no one should confuse the ESD with the OSD. They obviously mean different things. Personally I'm confused about the details of the ESD, but that's OK, if I wanted to, I'd join the working group and learn more about it. I would not conflate that work with OSI. In fact, reading the ESD I see it to conflict with OSI much the way you could not have organic grass-fed pork that was also kosher. My recommendation: if ESD is interesting to you, work on it. If OSD is interesting, work on it. If someone can create a license that complies with both, more power to you. But unless one of those definitions changes, I don't think that's going to happen. IMO these should be treated as separate endeavors with separate goals. Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement >From the Open Source Program Office <https://developer.yahoo.com/opensource/docs/> at Yahoo --> Oath - -> Verizon Media My work calendar is open for colleagues to see. yo/open-calendars On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:01 AM Thorsten Glaser <t...@mirbsd.de> wrote: > Pamela Chestek dixit: > > >would be an enforceable license. Why are you trying to fit it under the > > Au contraire, his dual licence isn’t enforceable, unless it > allows me to exercise my right (and possibly even duty!) under > the LGPL to give a copy to Amazon under LGPL, which they then > can use under LGPL. > > (This includes stripping any additional restrictions.) > > >umbrella of "open source" too? > > Yes, please kindly do stop abusing the ressources of this > mailing list for your clearly nōn-free ideas. Thanks. > > bye, > //mirabilos > -- > I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it > when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy > them. > If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny > existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
