As I said, it's time to shut this conversation down. No one's mind is
going to be changed no matter how logical or illogical the arguments.
Pam
Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative
On 2/1/2021 5:17 AM, Antoine Thomas via License-discuss wrote:
I would like to illustrate with a simplified example.
Let's say I am building special cars for a niche market in small
quantities (e.g. for people with disabilities). I am an individual,
and I work with other individuals, we are not incorporated (that would
be foolish because of the risk, but, anyway). We are using open source
software, and free software, or any technology available as open
source (not just software), for car controls (engine, security, ...)
and entertainment. People buy the cars and drive them, thanks to our
special technology. The fact is that they are users of the software,
distributed with the car. Anyone, including a company or a state, can
buy and use the car. And that matters: in this very example, it would
mean that a group of people gathered in a not for profit organisation
could own cars and provide them to people in need (renting, time
sharing, ...).
Then, let say I add some software released with a leftcopy license
that includes restrictions on corporations and other organisations.
The firmwares is updated on all cars to the benefits of all users. If
my understanding is good, it would mean that organisations can't
anymore own and use the cars, and their employees or beneficiaries
will not be able to drive them anymore. Only individuals owners can
still own and drive their cars.
Then, let's go to the next step. Imagine an individual stealing one of
the cars, and then use it to rob a bank. How are restrictions in a
"don't do evil" license managing that bad behavior? Is it allowed
anyway, because this is done by an individual, or will you add a
clause against it? And, does the vilain really care about it anyway?
Who would you sew because the terms of the license were not respected?
The vilain? The car owner? Or, eventually, me, the car manufacturer,
as the distributor of the software, because I was not able to ensure
that the license will be respected?
That's also a question about third party providers:
- To own and drive a car you must pay an insurance company, but is
this allowed by the license?
- You must go to the mechanic (most often, a company) from time to
time, and they will at least drive the car in their workshop, or test
it on roads, so they will have to use the software even if it's not
allowed to them.
And what is happening if me and my associates want to incorporate?
This is actually not viable to make a difference between individuals
and organisations, or discrimination in genaral between different kind
of users: because this is not taking in account the real life. And
it's not just about cars... The risk to use software with this kind of
restriction is then too high for any one taking care about legal
compliance, including individuals. And that's also the purpose of FSF
and OSI approved licenses: to allow any kind of user to use
the technology. When you think about it, RMS was not an individual
when he had his printer firmware issue, he was working for MIT.
My point is that it's not just about who can use the technology to
build or develop something. It's also about the very end users, and
all kinds of users.
(please, do not hesitate to correct me if I am misunderstanding
something of if this example is not appropriate)
Antoine
PrestaShop
<https://www.prestashop.com/?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_campaign=emails-signatures>
Antoine Thomas aka ttoine
Open Source Evangelist
t: +33 (0)6 63 13 79 06
antoine.tho...@prestashop.com <mailto:antoine.tho...@prestashop.com>
On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 05:01, Johnny A. Solbu <joh...@solbu.net
<mailto:joh...@solbu.net>> wrote:
On Tuesday 26 January 2021 17:07, Mat K. Witts wrote:
> > Yes, on its own. It's a group.
>
> Show me the group then. What/who does it contain that is not
either an
> officer, shareholder, subsidiary company, customer, client or
> representative officer. When you strike out a company, nobody
ceases to
> exist, it's just the legal entity. That ought to tell you all
you need
> to know about what a corporation is.
>
> > You intend to discriminate
>
> Not against any human beings, which is what that section must
surely be
> all about. There is ZERO discrimination against anyone.
The various FSF and OSI licenses deliberately avoid separating
corporations/companies from actuall people.
Corporations/Companies are treated as any other user and have all
the same freedoms and restrictions as a real human being has.
> > We don't WANT to discriminate, even against "bad" people.
>
> ...and how's that working out?
You are missing the point.
If any govermnent or company manages to completely kill off the
entire human race by using Free Software, they are free to do so
as far as the various Free software licence texts is concerned.
There is no way any Free and Open Source licence terms can be used
to even attempt to stop or restrict a government or any company
from using our software for «evil purposes», and this is /not/ an
oversight.
--
Johnny A. Solbu
web site, https://www.solbu.net <https://www.solbu.net>
PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324
_______________________________________________
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 <http://opensource.org> email address.
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://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org>
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
