Oh, it seems the Ethical Source definition recently changed. Those changes look good! To disambiguate, I'm referring to the [EOS] linked below, as opposed to the previous [ESD]. (Please consider adding a version number!)
As far as I can see, this EOS definition is potentially compatible with the OSD, in the sense that *a project and its license can satisfy OSD and EOS at the same time. *The crucial part is that the *EOS talks about how project maintainers behave and does not impose restrictions on downstream recipients*. Importantly, the ESD's problematic human rights clause has been removed. Thank you for that change! However, a license that would *force* a project and its derivatives to be EOS would violate the OSD. OSD#6 clashes with the general spirit of EOS. And EOS#6 walks a fine line that has been controversially discussed on license-review during approval of the CAL. In the context of the CAL, the major argument in favor of such a requirement was not privacy, but that access to data is necessary to exercise software freedom to such a fundamental degree that it overrides OSD#6 concerns. Similarly, I could see the accessibility requirements in EOS#4 as potentially OSD-compatible, if a license were to express that in clear and enforceable language, taking into account OSD#10. As others here have noted, EOS#7 is a bit weird. Of course anyone could ask for donations/voluntary support. A license forbidding that would also violate the OSD. However, using the words “compensation”, “remuneration”, or “consideration” seems to be a red herring as they imply a contractual requirement that goes directly against OSD#1. EOS could be made more clearly compatible by stating that redistribution or modification of software must not be subject to royalty-like fees. [EOS]: https://web.archive.org/web/20200316101958/https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/ [ESD]: https://web.archive.org/web/20200308160424/https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/ On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 at 00:31, Coraline Ada Ehmke <coral...@idolhands.com> wrote: > > On Mar 15, 2020, at 7:07 PM, Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote: > > Ethical software is by definition not open source. > > > Can you point to any specific points in the definition of Ethical Open > Source that conflicts with the OSD? (I’m not talking about ELOS.) > > https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/ > > —Coraline > > _______________________________________________ > 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
