Thanks all for your input - I'm finding it quite challenging to follow the conversations and determine who is responding to whom. Is there any way for me to access the forum board directly, or am I limited to reading the discussions through email notifications only?
Respectfully, Daniel Mihai Founder and CTO Mobile: +353 (0) 87 450 8112 E-mail: dan...@anuinitiative.org Web-site: https://anuinitiative.org Let’s take the initiative! -----Original Message----- From: License-discuss <license-discuss-boun...@lists.opensource.org> On Behalf Of license-discuss-requ...@lists.opensource.org Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 12:00 PM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue 12 Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to license-discuss@lists.opensource.org To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to license-discuss-requ...@lists.opensource.org You can reach the person managing the list at license-discuss-ow...@lists.opensource.org When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of License-discuss digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative (Bruce Perens) 2. Re: documentation on un-enforceability of ethical licenses? (was Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative (Bruce Perens) 3. Re: License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue 3 (Tom Callaway) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 20:09:29 +0000 From: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative Message-ID: <CAK2MWOuxZ3yGdj=YXM+Sbj_X7szBqjaYcuvksmzjy=kg8xp...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I apologize for the worse phrasing than necessary. It did not further the discussion. I'm not mistaken, everyone knew that the Vaccine license was from me before the vote. I accepted the penalty. The penalty process should have ended at that point. That two people pursue it today seems strange to me. I have not returned to license-review since then, nor do I plan to. This is simply from my belief in the diminished value of the process, unless it is dealing with legislation or case law as Brian mentioned. And of course that is rare so far. If it is the OSI's sentiment that every submission must go through the process and be treated as honorably as any other, and that I should not warn people in this forum about the way they can actually hurt developers with a poorly constructed license, I will no longer do so. It's your party. I can talk about such things elsewhere. Thanks Bruce On Tue, Feb 6, 2024, 18:45 Josh Berkus <j...@berkus.org> wrote: > On 2/6/24 02:01, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote: > > I agree with Brian. Of late OSI has made progress in having other > > things that make them meaningful than the approval process. Dealing > > with legislation and case law is important. pleasing the legal > > neophyte who thinks they've invented better licensing is not. > > There is absolutely no reason to be gratuitously rude. > > Daniel, please be aware that Bruce does not speak for the OSI Board or > any body of the OSI. > > -- > Josh Berkus > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.ope > nsource.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20240206/78443a04/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 05:34:26 +0000 From: Bruce Perens <br...@perens.com> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Cc: Stefano Maffulli <stef...@opensource.org>, Roland Turner <rol...@rolandturner.com>, Daniel Mihai <dan...@anuinitiative.org> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] documentation on un-enforceability of ethical licenses? (was Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative Message-ID: <cak2mwos8ldge1ia5_9bj5ncvofgqavmhyyh06+evrbhjfk9...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" This is really very simple. Nations are sovereign powers. You can read up on what a sovereign power is. They have to agree to be sued. To make a license that would stop Putin from bombing Ukraine would require the existence of a god who enforced licenses. Within a nation you can to some degree enforce rules against munitions contractors. This will end up in something I'm working on, to the joy of the ethical crowd, but not for the reason they would want it. Both ITAR and EAR have carve outs for open source due to lawsuits. The carve outs specifically mention information in the public domain. This is not public domain in the copyright sense, but the opposite of trade secret. So technically we can share anything we want with North Korea. And that makes Open Source possible for anything that is on the munitions list in ITAR 121, because how could we keep North Korea from downloading? These "munitions" include ultra low bandwith digital voice CODECs and satellite ground stations, both Open Source projects I'm involved with in the amateur radio community. The problem comes up when some military contractor pops up on the mailing list of an Open Source project. If you answer them, you might be rendering defense services, and suddenly your project is subject to ITAR and EAR. The best way to protect from that is simply to rule that use out in the license. Which would obviously not meet the OSD. On Tue, Feb 6, 2024, 22:41 Roland Turner via License-discuss < license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > On 6/2/24 23:39, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > > Question for the wider group: Can you point me to a document (legal or > otherwise) that argues the unenforceability of ethical clauses, like > these ones? > > Not on unenforceability but on harm to F/OSS communities, I spoke on > The critical importance of use-neutrality in F/OSS licensing > <https://rolandturner.com/sots/> at SOTS 2020 > > > - Roland > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.ope > nsource.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20240207/6efdfa6a/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 3 Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 19:28:47 +0000 From: Tom Callaway <spo...@gmail.com> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Cc: dan...@anuinitiative.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue 3 Message-ID: <cacp8zrlyfsoonud+tgnrgp_ci6uydq7_8afk5lyvyikhbxp...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I think it is worth noting that your license may not hold up to scrutiny should you attempt to enforce it. If you choose to put this into use, you would be well served to have it rewritten by a lawyer with experience in copyright licensing. ~spot On Tue, Feb 6, 2024, 6:43?PM Josh Berkus <j...@berkus.org> wrote: > On 2/5/24 08:38, Daniel Mihai wrote: > > AI-OAL Section 4 > > 4. Environmental Responsibility Clause You must use The Product in a > > way that positively contributes to environmental conservation and > > sustainability. > > You shall not use The Product in any way that significantly harms > > the environment, as determined at the discretion of the Organization. > > > > We are happy to remove the restriction of use for positive > > ecological conservation and sustainability, yet we are not happy to > > allow usage of the product for means that significantly harms the > > environment - as this > > would go against our companies values/mission/vision. > > > > Can you please let us know how best we can amend Section 4 in a way that > > is compliant with ODS 6? > > There is no method or wording which allows you to reconcile these two > incompatible goals. > > OSD6 exists because it's not possible for software to be open source > while restricting what industries or purposes it's used in. A lot of > us would love to see a workable legal framework for ethical open > source licenses, but there simply isn't one. And folks have been > trying for quite some time. > > That's not to say that you can't use this license. You can, and you > should, given your company's mission. It just won't be open source. > > -- > Josh Berkus > > > _______________________________________________ > 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.ope > nsource.org > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20240206/7995e7e6/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Subject: Digest Footer _______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org ------------------------------ End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue 12 ************************************************ _______________________________________________ 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
