Josh, Rick, you both make very good points. I'll reinforce: I do not know other people's motivations. My observations (also informed by participating on the ethical source working group channels) is that there is a distance in terms of shared objectives. That suggests faith in different outcomes, but not bad faith. I don't think there's bad faith here (I'm sorry if anyone thought I suggested that), but I am disappointed in the way in which the conversation is going (both on this list and on their discussions). I suggested to members of the Ethical Source working group ways in which they could engage that would bring the conversation goals closer. I shared a number of examples of messages that come across in ways that at least I thought were unnecessarily provocative and explored if there was interest in reconsidering the approach that signaled a shared goal and understanding.
My current feeling is disappointment in the conversation and I'm less enthusiastic about seeing this play out. Largely because I think they are looking to achieve a different goal. They may be relieved that I'll ask fewer questions and make fewer suggestions, too. You are right, OSD is not immutable. But this is the license-discuss list, not the OSD-discuss list, nor the ESD-discuss list. Maybe that's too fine a point, and I'm sure (and hope) other people on this list are less interested in discussing if I was sufficiently articulate and measured in my words. Sorry to distract from the conversation. Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:05 PM Josh Berkus <j...@berkus.org> wrote: > On 3/11/20 2:33 PM, Gil Yehuda via License-discuss wrote: > > This topic is very important and we're all passionate about it. Written > > text in email groups is notoriously bad for conveying nuance. I was > > hoping to come across more balanced than perhaps I did. My essential > > message is that as a discussion list we're most effective toward our > > goals when we focus on improving /open source/ licensing. > > Sure, but what "improving" means has to be continually defined, and tested. > > Coraline (and others) believe that ethical clauses are a license > improvement. I happen to not agree, but that doesn't mean they're > arguing in bad faith, or even necessarily wrong. If you don't think > Coraline sincerely believes in her mission to improve open source, you > haven't met her. > > And ... we just this month decided that "rights to user data" *was* > potentially an improvement in open source licensing. Several people > still disagree that this is an improvement (some quite vocally), and > time will tell who is right, but if we couldn't have a discussion that > tests the limits of what is open source, then we couldn't make progress. > > License-discuss is where we discuss (among other things) what it means > to be Open Source, up to, and including, revisions of the OSD (OSD 8/9, > I have my eyes on you). If you want a list where the OSD text is > immutable, then that's license-review. > > -- > Josh Berkus >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
