Speaking personally, I support anyone who wants to use a software license for whatever ends important to them. The problem I have is that picking and choosing who may use software is not reconcilable with the current OSD, which has over 20 years of proven successful track record. Open source is eating the world because "open source" has a known, relatively predictable meaning. Governments, businesses and individuals make far-reaching and wide-ranging choices about software based on the fact that the software meets the definition of open source. To change the definition in any significant way will destroy their trust and they will no longer be able to rely on the term as meaningful. "Open source" will just become market speak, like "best of breed." This is why the approval of CAL took so long; it was a step beyond any currently existing approved license and we had to make sure (based on insights from "just opinion holders," who are extremely important) that it wasn't a step too far.
So yes, I think it's perfectly ok to create a category that limits the use of software based on the identity of the user, but it can't also meet the longstanding definition of "open source." Pam Pamela S. Chestek Chestek Legal PO Box 2492 Raleigh, NC 27602 919-800-8033 pam...@chesteklegal.com www.chesteklegal.com On 3/10/2020 11:13 PM, Grahame Grieve wrote: > The question for me is whether there's some useful middle ground. Is > there value in having an ethical use license where the creator gives > up many but not all rights, in a way that respects some core tenets of > the open source movement, and where the ethical restrictions are > careful, and that this place, while not proper open source, is still a > recognisable benefit with a name like Ethical Public Source or > something? > > A different phrasing might be, do the managers of opensource.org > <http://opensource.org> believe in all or nothing? Personally, I think > that it's consistent with the open source philosophy to encourage > creators to be as open as they can be, and not to encourage the more > predatory aspects of proprietary source just because it''s not wholly > open source. Noting that I, of course, am just an opinion holder, not > someone who is important. > > Grahame > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 1:33 PM Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com > <mailto:nel...@crynwr.com>> wrote: > > On 3/10/20 3:32 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote: > > > On 3/10/2020 1:32 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote: > >> "I think the fundamental thing that bothers me the most about > the OSD > >> 1.x is that it grants rights downstream, but doesn’t give the > creators > >> any real rights. And that’s a major difference between open and > >> #EthicalSource — ethical source is about empowering creators." > >> https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1234307401169408001 > >> > > I was struck by this too. The reality is that, by virtue of the > > structure of copyright, creators (or more accurately authors) > have ALL > > the rights and it's only through license that they give up some > of those > > rights. An author is free to craft a license to whomever they > choose on > > the terms they choose. So I didn't understand the argument. > But only those licenses which give up the right to control use, > modification, and redistribution may be called Open Source. Licenses > which retain the right to allow only ethical use not not Open Source > .... And That Is Okay. It's always been okay. But it's not our > way, and > will never be our way. > > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > <mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org> > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > > > > -- > ----- > http://www.healthintersections.com.au / > grah...@healthintersections.com.au > <mailto:grah...@healthintersections.com.au> / +61 411 867 065 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
