Hear hear! I recently had to grant an internal exception to allow
contributions to Vim because "The Vim License" is not an OSI-approved
license. I have no doubt that it would be approved were it to be
submitted, but it has not been as far as I can tell and is unlikely to
ever be.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 2:18 PM VanL wrote:
> On the flip side, I think there should be an affirmative effort to certify
> licenses - such as those identified via the SPDX project - even without
> affirmative submission. Most of them will not be controversial. We want to
> reach a world in whi
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:13 AM Eric Schultz wrote:
> From any understanding I've had of FOSS, I don't see how a preamble saying
> the community's opinion is that an organization is unwelcome violates any
> principle behind FOSS. The condemned organization is legally able to exercise
> all the
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:13 AM Eric Schultz wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2020 at 9:20 AM VanL wrote:
> > I also think that it is troubling that forced inclusion of the preamble was
> > essentially forcing speech on those who may not agree.
> In regards to forced speech, I think this is an alread
I'll +1 Richard here. Decertification is the better long-term outcome.
Deprecated may be a step to decertification, but there are a few licenses
that should probably be decertified.
On the flip side, I think there should be an affirmative effort to certify
licenses - such as those identified via t
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:09 PM Simon Phipps
wrote:
> What I'd propose here is that we explore a process for deprecation of
> licenses by someone other than the license steward. Maybe it would start
> with a substantiated request endorsed by several regular list members, and
> then follow the
I agree on all points except rejecting new projects. We don't accept
projects, so we don't reject them. We could ask forges to remove the
license from their list of choices for new projects.
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 10:36 AM Karan, Cem F CIV USARMY CCDC ARL (USA) via
License-discuss wrote:
> Er
Eric S. Raymond wrote on Monday, February 24, 2020 2:10 PM
>
> Simon Phipps :
> > What I'd propose here is that we explore a process for deprecation of
> > licenses by someone other than the license steward. Maybe it would
> > start with a substantiated request endorsed by several regular list
>
On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 7:15 AM Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> John Cowan :
> > 3) We do not consider ourselves bound by stare decisis if we believe it
> > will lead to a bad result in this particular case. In my view,
> open-source
> > license certification is not a situation in which it is always be
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:28 PM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> The most recent proposal to use a license preamble as shame-vehicle
> reveals a potential loophole to the OSD.
>
This is an important part of the clarification. Recognising that it is
On 2/24/2020 7:07 PM, Eric Schultz wrote:
> (For full background, see previous thread)
>
> Before beginning, I strongly discourage anyone from using these ideas
> with out talking to a lawyer; licenses are complex tools and the law
> is not kind to those who violate it, particularly marginalized
On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 12:27 PM 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 expre
> On Feb 24, 2020, at 8:44 AM, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
>
> With whatever moral authority I still have here, I say to all
> advocates of soi-disant "ethical" licensing not just "No" but "To hell
> with you *and* the horse you rode in on."
FTR, I find the final part of that sentence uncalled for
John Cowan :
> 3) We do not consider ourselves bound by stare decisis if we believe it
> will lead to a bad result in this particular case. In my view, open-source
> license certification is not a situation in which it is always better to
> have a settled result than a just result.
That is elegan
Nicholas Matthew Neft Weinstock :
> I agree, that seems a step too far. The term “Open Source” was around and
> used to describe some licenses before OSI and the OSD existed.
No, it wasn't. Believe me, I did a *very* through audit on existing
usage at the time I proposed the term for general us
McCoy Smith :
> Is the proposal to "revoke" or simply to "deprecate"?
I would accept "deprecate", with an understanding that deprecation
should be considered fair warning that a license may be decertified
based on further examination and experience.
In fact, I think "deprecation" as a first step
Simon Phipps :
> What I'd propose here is that we explore a process for deprecation of
> licenses by someone other than the license steward. Maybe it would start
> with a substantiated request endorsed by several regular list members, and
> then follow the same discussion-followed-by-committee-rev
Eric S. Raymond :
> But there are two recent developments I find concerning that have
> convinced me I need to weigh in. Please pay careful attention, as I am
> not making this choice likely.
Ooops. Not making this choice *lightly*.
--
http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond
(For full background, see previous thread)
Before beginning, I strongly discourage anyone from using these ideas with
out talking to a lawyer; licenses are complex tools and the law is not kind
to those who violate it, particularly marginalized people. I also think a
far more diverse forum than th
Thanks to those who provided constructive feedback. I'll try to address
some of the open topics that came up in a single email.
First off, I want to make clear: I'm not convinced licensing is the correct
place to address social justice issues. I'm not sure what's been described
is a good idea even
Eric,
Could you explain where in the non-legally functional Persona non Grata
Preamble that anyone is being "denied" use of the software? I'm not sure I
see that. Shame, annoyed, socially discouraged perhaps but I don't see how
it is "denied".
My horse and myself will be over here waiting for cla
21 matches
Mail list logo
