From: Tobie Langel <to...@unlockopen.com> 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 3:43 PM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org; mc...@lexpan.law
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors 
outside license agreements?

 

 

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.

 

I’d agree that the annotation is not helpful, given all that it really talks 
about (or talks about as being “major”) is commercial use.  But by that logic, 
one could put a restriction against any number of non-commercial uses.   For 
example: “this software may not be used to promote socialism.”  Does that 
satisfy the OSD?

 

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

 

Ah, but there are some  of us who have argued they are…

 

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).

 

I’m not sure how you get to those two conclusions.  There are no “protected 
classes” and “unprotected classes” in the OSD.  They apply to everyone equally.

 

As to whether “genocide” is a field of endeavor, I think many folks have said 
you can use free or open source software for anything, even things that a large 
majority of people would find objectionable if not horrifying:



“We've long believed that it should be possible to use software for any 
purpose; we said the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License was non-free 
because it limited this freedom. GPLv3 has no such limits. You can use GPLed 
software to implement DRM, guide nuclear missiles, or run your own organized 
crime syndicate—just as you can use it to administer a court, run an animal 
shelter, or organize your community.”

 

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-10-18-gplv3-fud

 

So I think the plain meaning, and the conventional understanding, of OSD 5 & 6 
is “you cannot put any restriction against any user, or use, of the software, 
in an open source license”

 

_______________________________________________
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

Reply via email to