Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

Hello VanL,> That said, there is an essential difference between moral/ethical views that are *necessarily congruent* with FOSS and those that are not. That seems perfectly sensible and logical to me. Morals and ethics are almost allways couched in context.> However, it is unclear whether any ef

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

Hi Andrew, Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that Free Software was developed based upon a particular moral and ethical point of view. I also think you are correct that the moral foundations of FOSS text to attract many people with strong moral convictions. That said, there is an essentia

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

Hello,Netiquette requires me first to apologize for formatting/syntax I'm writing this on a cell phone.I'm  jumping in here because I'd like to point out something that I think is being missed and can hopefully get the mailing list out of its spiral downwards. First I am not a lawyer, a great ph

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

Hi Russell, Strong opinions can be expressed without sharp language. That doesn't mean that we don't have strong opinions, or that we don't try to express them as cogently and persuasively as we can. My point - or at least one of my points - is that sharp language is usually less effective in bei

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

I would like to point out that the OSI rejected the email ESR sent that Gil quoted (which I have removed) and it did not get published to the list. It would be helpful if everyone could make sure when replying they aren't inadvertently subverting the moderation process. Pam Pamela Chestek Chair,

Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 3:29 PM VanL wrote: > the right of ESR to share them - this isn't "appropriateness as > censorship." But in my experience, such strong language is usually not > effective in changing opinions, and it can lead to a situation where we > only hear from people who agree with u

[License-discuss] Moderator Notice

The OSI Board is aware that some offensive emails have been sent to this list. The OSI does not tolerate deliberately divisive or disrespectful messages from any quarter. We have already taken moderation actions to this effect and we will apply further sanctions if necessary. To review OSI's polic

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

There was a small but vocal effort that successfully stopped NOSA 3.0 despite it fixing issues in NOSA 2.0. The claim was that the problematic clause(s) failed the OSD and were unnecessary even though government lawyers thought it was necessary. These clauses, of course, exist in NOSA 2.0.

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

>>From: License-discuss On >>Behalf Of Gil Yehuda via License-discuss >>Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 10:42 AM >>To: e...@thyrsus.com >>Cc: Gil Yehuda ; Gil Yehuda via License-discuss >> >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing >>for Justice >>Let

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

What about NOSA 3.0? Thanks, Cem Karan —- Other than quoted laws, regulations or officially published policies, the views expressed herein are not intended to be used as an authoritative state of law nor do they reflect official positions of the U.S. Army, Department of Defense or U.S. Govern

[License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas

Having recently borne the brunt of a number of very pointed comments, both on- and off-lis, I wanted to share a few thoughts about language and how we react to people with different ideas. 1. We should start out from a stance where people should be free to express their ideas. Absent evidence of

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

Eric, I'm confident that success at, um, fending this attack will benefit from our calm responses to the issues and our avoidance of responses that undermine the effectiveness of this list or further feed into the politics. This is not my first time seeing this conversation come up, nor it is yours

Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

>>-Original Message- >>From: License-discuss On Behalf Of Eric S. Raymond >>Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2020 1:33 PM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives >>VanL : >>> I'll +1 Richard here. Decertification is the b

Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

Nigel T : > Probably because there is the concern that a few folks would seek to > decertify licenses like NOSA and millions of lines of software that other > folks depend on. That is a fair concern. /me reads NOSA license I would deprecate this because of the uncertainty over the interpretation

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

Eric Schultz : > We need a set of options, licensing > or otherwise, that uphold the OSD and FSD and allow them to make some > different on the other issues in the world. I'm trying to explore the > licensing topic here. No, we don't. I am not fooled. You are mo

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble

>>-Original Message- >>From: License-discuss On Behalf Of Thorsten Glaser >>Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2020 8:52 AM >>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org >>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble >>John Cowan dixit: Social jus

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble

Johnny A. Solbu : > Adding such [social-justice] clauses makes any software using such a license, > proprietary software. Precise language is important. Respectfully, I judge this claim is false. "Proprietary" has a specific meaning related to the assertion of exclusive ownership rights. That

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

Pamela Chestek : > I don't see the point of these contortions. Why not just write a license > that says "everyone case use the software except Amazon." It suspect it > would be an enforceable license. Why are you trying to fit it under the > umbrella of "open source" too? Because that way he could

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

We operate in the realm of words, and words matter, words help clarify. Analogy: Food labels can indicate a product to be Organic, Free Trade, Gluten-free, Kosher, Poisonous, etc. Each of these labels indicate something different. No one insists that in order to be considered Free Trade that a pro

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble

John Cowan dixit: >>Social justice clauses /Does Not/ belong in licenses, in any form. > >I agree, for reasons stated. OSD #11? (just kidding, a common practice used by the approvers will suffice) bye, //mirabilos -- I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it whe

[License-discuss] Request from OSI GM

LD & LR Members, >From an organizational management and operations perspective, I would like to ask those posting to the OSI mailing lists to please be mindful of the limited resources available to the OSI to monitor and moderate messages that recipients may find objectionable. Please use neutral

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

Pamela Chestek dixit: >would be an enforceable license. Why are you trying to fit it under the Au contraire, his dual licence isn’t enforceable, unless it allows me to exercise my right (and possibly even duty!) under the LGPL to give a copy to Amazon under LGPL, which they then can use under LGP

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:35 AM Johnny A. Solbu wrote: On Tuesday 25 February 2020 16:43, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > I am one of those who fully agree with Eric Raymond on this. Social justice clauses /Does Not/ belong in licenses, in any form. > I agree, for reasons stated. Adding such claus

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

On 2/25/2020 12:16 PM, Eric Schultz wrote: > On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:02 AM Pamela Chestek > wrote: > > > I don't see the point of these contortions. Why not just write a > license > that says "everyone case use the software except Amazon." It > suspe

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:45 AM Eric Schultz wrote: > We need a set of options, licensing or otherwise, that uphold the OSD and > FSD and allow them to make some different on the other issues in the world. > I'm trying to explore the licensing topic here. > Why does someone "need" that. I don't

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble

On Tuesday 25 February 2020 16:43, Eric S. Raymond wrote: > Eric Schultz : > > I would argue that controlling your computing IS a social justice issue. > > While I do not require anyone else to share my opinion on this, my past > experience is that people who use "social justice issue" in this way

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble

Richard Fontana : > I agree with you to some degree. The GPL does show that political > speech in a preamble is not out of bounds in an open source license. > But I don't believe the example of the GPL establishes that *all* > speech possibly characterizable as political in nature should be > inclu

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble

Eric Schultz : > I would argue that controlling your computing IS a social justice issue. While I do not require anyone else to share my opinion on this, my past experience is that people who use "social justice issue" in this way are enemies of liberty, intent (among other things) on enforcing th

Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

There has been discussion (though in this case debian rather than OSI) approval on the Vim License before; see https://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2002/01/msg00010.html . As a summary, the vim license still asks for those who make changes provide them to the maintainer. Members of this mailing li

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

There is a significant difference between deprecating and decertification. A deprecated api can still be used. One removed (aka decertified) cannot. The bar for decertification should be exceedingly high. And how is “bad” decided? Is the limited patent clause in ECL v2 “bad” because it doe

Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

Probably because there is the concern that a few folks would seek to decertify licenses like NOSA and millions of lines of software that other folks depend on. On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 1:59 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > On Mon, Feb 24, 2020 at 1:09 PM Simon Phipps > wrote: > > > What I'd propose h

Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

VanL : > 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 tho

Re: [License-discuss] [Non-DoD Source] Re: "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

Nigel T : > There is a significant difference between deprecating and decertification. > > A deprecated api can still be used. One removed (aka decertified) cannot. > > The bar for decertification should be exceedingly high. > > And how is “bad” decided? Is the limited patent clause in ECL

Re: [License-discuss] "Fairness" vs. mission objectives

Kevin P. Fleming : > 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

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Persona non Grata Preamble

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020 at 1:43 PM Richard Fontana wrote: > > So, suppose a PNG preamble says "Members of $marginalized_group are > not welcome in our community" (I think from your initial message you > recognize that your approach could be used in such a way). If I could > demonstrate that an effect

Re: [License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

On Tue, Feb 25, 2020, 8:02 AM Pamela Chestek wrote: > > I don't see the point of these contortions. Why not just write a license > that says "everyone case use the software except Amazon." It suspect it > would be an enforceable license. Why are you trying to fit it under the > umbrella of "open