Quoting Russell Nelson (nel...@crynwr.com): > On 3/6/20 7:22 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote: > >“Hostile takeover” is not a goal of the Ethical Source Movement. > > Yes, it is. The Ethical Source Definition is hostile to the Open > Source Definition -- that's why you want to change it.
Without commenting on this exchange of claim/counterclaim, Russell, I wish to point out something that, remarkably, nobody else here appears to have commented on: Ms. Ehmke's Ethical Source Definition, which is published at https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/ , as written, encompasses quite a broad cross-section of _proprietary code_: Nothing in it even tries to articulate the right of third-party recipients to independently develop and continue a covered codebase -- which (along with the right to use it and derivative works for any purpose without fee) is the core concept of both open source and of free software. Members of the Ethical Source Working Group are apparently perfectly fine with covered codebases becoming unmaintainable because the founding developer ceased work and refused to authorise others to take over under an adequate rights grant. That is, of course, their right, as it is the right of proprietary software communities generally. However, this notion that the two definitions are even slightly alike let alone sharing general aims seems... contrary to plain text evidence. In that context, speaking of using covered code and derivative works for any purpose without fee, it seems minor (but also significant) to mention that ESD #5 ('Creators have the right to solicit reasonable compensation from any commercial entity that benefits from the software') clashes fundamentally with another one of OSD's key principles, stated in OSD#1 ('The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.') Which, IMO, once again reflects a proprietary-code mindset that is contrary to OSI's goals. I submit that these are not trivial differences, but rather quite profound ones, and people here are certainly welcome to wish Ethical Source Working Group luck in their endeavours, but the gaping chasm between the efforts' fundamental natures (setting aside rhetorical broadsides about motives) ought to be carefully noted. Ms. Ehmke's group is _not_ about open source. Her painstakingly drafted document tells us so, right there in plain language. Ms. Ehmke's (separately mentioned) desire to water down OSD#6 ('No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor') if elected to OSI's Board in service of ideological goals seems to have drawn most of the attention, but my point is that that's the smallest part of the matter. -- Cheers, "Maybe the law ain't perfect, but it's the only Rick Moen one we got, and without it we got nuthin'." r...@linuxmafia.com -- U.S. Deputy Marshal Bass Reeves, circa 1875 McQ! (4x80) _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
