On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 22:45 McCoy Smith <mc...@lexpan.law> wrote: > *On Behalf Of *Tobie Langel > *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2020 9:55 AM > > I agree. Currently section 5 and 6 are vague (in particular the term > "field of endeavor") and imho an ethical licenses could be written that > complied with the OSD. > Field of Endeavor is a pretty well established term in the law. See, > inter alia, In Re Richard M. Deminski, 796 F.2d 436 (Fed. Cir. 1986). >
Is the OSD a legal document rooted in American law, though? The OSD uses “genetic research” or “being used in a business” as examples of fields of endeavor. The annotated version is even more explicit about section 6’s role. > If there’s an ethical license that satisfies the OSD (particularly 5 & 6), > I have yet to see one. > Regardless of how useless such a license would be, wouldn’t a simple MIT license with the additional clause “Must not be use to commit genocide” actually satisfy all OSD criteria? Note I’m absolutely not claiming it would be certified by the OS. It also violates freedom 0, but the four freedoms aren’t part of the OSD Committing genocide is clearly not a field of endeavor as defined by section 6 of the OSD, and people who commit genocide aren’t a protected class that would warrant protection of section 5 (and even if that argument was made, people who commit genocide could still use the software, just not to commit genocide). Am I missing anything beyond the fact that this is a contrived example? —tobie
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
