As someone who deals with some of these issues frequently in his day job,
* The substantive discussions and explanations here are helpful to me.
Thank you for that.
* The shorter the post, and the less ad hominem it is, the more likely it
will be read or understood over here.
Thanks
_
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:19 PM Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock <
nwein...@qti.qualcomm.com> wrote:
> I don’t think there is any dispute that OSI can use whatever criteria it
> wants to add licenses to the list of OSI-Approved Licenses.
>
Well, within the OSD, which is effectively our constituti
>>From: Simon Phipps
>>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 10:09 AM
>>To: McCoy Smith ; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives
>>Note that we already accept requests from the license steward to deprecate a
>>license, either because
I’m reading Eric’s proposal and John’s response as addressing slightly
different things.
OSI publishes the Open Source Definition, and maintains a list of OSI-Approved
Licenses.
I don’t think there is any dispute that OSI can use whatever criteria it wants
to add licenses to the list of OSI-Ap
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 5:59 PM McCoy Smith wrote:
> >>-Original Message-
> >>From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Eric S. Raymond
> >>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 5:01 AM
> >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> >>Subject: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives
>
>
>>-Original Message-
>>From: License-discuss On
Behalf Of Eric S. Raymond
>>Sent: Monday, February 24, 2020 5:01 AM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives
>>Pamela Chestek's has asserted that it would be "unfair" to revoke
OSI has two public email lists related to licensing. One is for review, one
is for discussion. This one is for discussion.
I happen to agree with those here who think conflating "ethics" (or various
proxies thereof) into the open source licenses does great disservice -- in
irony to the benevolent
On Monday 24 February 2020 14:44, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> I reject the "Persona Non Grata" clause, and all other attempts at
> so-called "ethical" open-source licensing, in the strongest possible
> terms. To get entangled in this sort of thing would not merely
> be against OSI's charter as expres
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 11:08 AM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
The analogy [with UL] is exact.
Not quite. If we found out that the license did not meet the OSD's
requirements, it would indeed be our duty to decertify it. However, goals
like "minimize license proliferation" are less clear-cut. Sayi
I reject the "Persona Non Grata" clause, and all other attempts at
so-called "ethical" open-source licensing, in the strongest possible
terms. To get entangled in this sort of thing would not merely
be against OSI's charter as expressed in the OSD, it would invite
second- and third-order effects t
Pamela Chestek's has aasserted that it would be "unfair" to revoke
certification of licenses we have previously accepted.
There is a kind of "fairness" I think we do owe - that is, process
fairness. Transparency, accountabilty, and judging licenses without
fear or favor.
But I deny that "fairnes
After twenty years of staying off this list, I have joined it.
I didn't, until now, because whenever I checked in on this list the
regulars seemed to be doing the job I expected them to do quite
competently. And I had enough of an "I can't be everywhere, dammit!"
problem without adding to it.
But
On 2/24/2020 9:35 AM, John Cowan wrote:
> Once you trip on it, entails
> Twenty-nine distinct damnations
> One sure, if another fails."
Sound's like IBM's patent license extraction scheme.[^1]
Pam
[^1]: For those of you not familiar,
https://www.forbes.com/asap/2002/0624/044.html.
Pamela S. Ch
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 9:11 AM Simon Phipps wrote:
However, it might make the license fail OSD #5. In jurisdictions prone to
> libel and/or defamation lawsuits, developers might feel they are prevented
> from using code that includes a statement which might prove actionable in
> their jurisdicti
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 1:29 PM John Cowan wrote:
>
> What the OP is proposing is *not* restrictions. The license remains free
> and open source. Since all licenses require that they be preserved intact
> in all modified copies, it is a way to use the license as a virus to spread
> the opinions
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 4:06 AM Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:26:25AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
[...]
> > One more practical and probably negative impact: it will always be
> > easier to add new names than to remove old ones, because adding new
> > names is a simple
On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 11:26:25AM -0800, Brian Behlendorf wrote:
> I am struck by the brilliance of the self-shaming aspect of this -
> that ICE would be free to use this software, but would have to
> redistribute ICE-shaming sentence if they redistributed or derived
> works from it.
Same here. T
17 matches
Mail list logo
