Quoting Eric Schultz (e...@wwahammy.com):
> Anyways, now that that is out of the way, my first idea is called the
> Persona non Grata Preamble.
[...]
In my opinion, OSI license-discuss participants would be well advised to
pointedly not assist you on this, or on any similar matters. You alread
John Cowan writes:
> In order for the attachment to propagate with the work, the license has to
> specify that it can't be removed, though. So, for example, you can't
> attach it effectively to the GPL, because the GPL only says the GPL must be
> preserved, and any additional terms that restrict
On Thu, Feb 20, 2020 at 9:45 PM Eric Schultz wrote:
> The idea for the Persona non Grata Preamble came from the preamble in the GPL
> families of license and ideas I have around excluding bad actors from
> communities using an advanced Code of Conduct. In this idea, a community
> would add a p
Hi Van,
> Yes, but putting it in the license makes it different in a way that I
> think may be cognizable under the OSD.
I don't believe you are at all wrong in terms that these preambles
would be a clear statement regarding how contributions etc. might be
welcomed, but I think I might need more
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 3:33 PM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
If I'm following this correctly, I think the proposal is to have an OSD
> compliant license that has attached to it some sort of credo and wall of
> shame. The credo defines the category o
If I'm following this correctly, I think the proposal is to have an OSD
compliant license that has attached to it some sort of credo and wall of
shame. The credo defines the category of undesirables and the wall of shame
preserves the record of those names upon distribution.
Although clearly not t
Which is fine. It's their code and they can license it however they want. They
just can't call it Open Source.
> On Feb 21, 2020, at 11:24 AM, Brendan Hickey
> wrote:
>
> While this may all seem hypothetical, a decade ago a developer bungled his
> taxes and retaliated by banning the Belgian g
On Fri, 21 Feb 2020, Jim Jagielski wrote:
On Feb 20, 2020, at 9:16 PM, Eric Schultz wrote:
Instead I've been thinking through ways in which licensing and ethical FOSS
community policies can interact in order to discourage and shame morally
corrupt users.
So who defines who is "morally corru
While this may all seem hypothetical, a decade ago a developer bungled his
taxes and retaliated by banning the Belgian government from using of his
code.
Brendan
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020, 11:20 AM VanL wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:53 AM John Cowan wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:2
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:53 AM John Cowan wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:21 AM VanL wrote:
>
>> But think about OSD #5, which prohibits discrimination against people or
>> groups, or OSD #6, prohibiting discrimination against fields of endeavor.
>> It is true that the PNGL would not vary t
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 10:21 AM VanL wrote:
But think about OSD #5, which prohibits discrimination against people or
> groups, or OSD #6, prohibiting discrimination against fields of endeavor.
> It is true that the PNGL would not vary the permissions granted, but it
> would be a clear statement
Hello Eric,
This is an interesting contribution to the overall discussion. I like that
you are thinking about things in a way that is explicitly OSD-compliant,
while still trying to advance your goals.
My take is that such a Persona-Non-Grata License (PNGL) would probably not
be OSD-compliant, ev
What if a car manufacturer used free software in their car (eg: for the
entertainment system, very common), and, then, military or terrorist buy
this car, or rent it? they will use free software without even knowing it.
Should the car manufacturer put a disclaimer at the start (eg: "warning,
you do
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 4:58 AM Johnny A. Solbu wrote:
> The moment you add a clause/Preamble like this in a license, it is no
> longer a Free Software license and many distros will refuse to include it.
> The restrictions you suggest will make any software using this license
> proprietary, it w
> On Feb 20, 2020, at 9:16 PM, Eric Schultz wrote:
>
> Instead I've been thinking through ways in which licensing and ethical FOSS
> community policies can interact in order to discourage and shame morally
> corrupt users.
So who defines who is "morally corrupt"? Who exactly is a "bad acto
On Friday 21 February 2020 03:16, Eric Schultz wrote:
> I'm not sure licensing is the proper place to address this issue but at the
> same
> time, it has powerful features that are valuable in what should be our
> common goal of social justice.
This does not belong in a licence. It belongs in a C
16 matches
Mail list logo
