On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 4:44 PM Christopher Lemmer Webber <
cweb...@dustycloud.org> wrote:
> Here is my answer: the role of FOSS licenses is to undo the damage that
> copyright, patents, and related intellectual-restriction laws have done
> when applied to software. That is what should be in the s
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, at 13:59, Pamela Chestek wrote:
> No, you shouldn't. License-review is a burdensome process for the OSI
> and the list participants, so it should be limited to real licenses, not
> thought experiments. License-discuss is for thought experiments.
There was also something simila
On 3/9/2020 3:35 PM, Christopher Lemmer Webber wrote:
> I actually considered
> drafting this into real license text and trying to push it all the way
> through the license-review process. I thought that doing so would be an
> interesting exercise for everyone. Maybe I still should.
No, you sho
I think I agree with your analysis on the whole. Mostly replying to
add a few points.
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 8:35 PM Christopher Lemmer Webber
wrote:
>
> What terms belong in a free and open source software license?
My humble viewpoint:
FOSS licenses create economic commons which must be open t
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, at 12:41, Chris Travers wrote:
> There's no reason to
> think that all the signatories of the UDHR for example meant the same
> thing by each of their understandings.
Indeed; they did not. More than that, a fact often overlooked by amateur human
rights activists is that the U
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 5:28 PM Coraline Ada Ehmke
wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 2020, at 1:33 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
> >
> > To clarify I think that any license which demands deference to one
> > side of a controversial social or political line over another to never
> > be considered OSI approved.
What terms belong in a free and open source software license? There has
been a lot of debate about this lately, especially as many of us are
interested in expanding the role we see that we play in terms of user
freedom issues. I am amongst those people that believe that FOSS is a
movement thats i
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:29 PM Coraline Ada Ehmke
wrote:
> Can you provide an example of an ethical source license that is based on a
> controversial social or political line?
>
I'm not trying to be confrontational, but I'm honestly confused by this
question.
Isn't the point of ethical source
Hi John,
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 12:57 PM John Cowan wrote:
> IANAL, but that doesn't look right to me. A contract to *do* something
> illegal is of course void, but a license term that says "This license is
> void if the licensee does something illegal" does not strike me as mere
> flatus vocis
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020 at 1:04 PM VanL wrote:
> The issue is not "terrorists don't care about licenses," it is that
> banning illegality is not generally considered to be an enforceable term in
> a contract/license. Illegal things are already illegal, so making them
> illegal *and* a breach of cont
Hello Coraline,
First, it is good that you are here on the mailing list and interacting
with some of the others who are in this space.
I wanted to comment on just two aspects of the below:
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 12:34 PM Coraline Ada Ehmke
wrote:
> On Mar 4, 2020, at 9:13 AM, Drew DeVault wro
On 3/8/20 3:53 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote:
Can you provide an example of an ethical source license that is based on a
controversial social or political line?
The Ethical Source Definition doesn't approve or disapprove of licenses.
Your question is irrelevant.
_
> On Mar 8, 2020, at 1:33 PM, Chris Travers wrote:
>
> To clarify I think that any license which demands deference to one
> side of a controversial social or political line over another to never
> be considered OSI approved. I think that's far more intrusive than
> restrictions on how a piece
On Mon, Mar 9, 2020, 12:29 PM Coraline Ada Ehmke
wrote:
>
>
> > On Mar 8, 2020, at 1:33 PM, Chris Travers
> wrote:
> >
> > To clarify I think that any license which demands deference to one
> > side of a controversial social or political line over another to never
> > be considered OSI approved.
That’s a distinction without a difference since the licensor gets to decide
what is or isn’t a human rights violation. So your own license is the example.
The licensor:
“If Licensor receives notification or otherwise learns of an alleged violation
of any Human Rights Principles relating to Lic
No harm done (except for misspelling my name :P )
> On Mar 8, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Drew DeVault wrote:
>
> Whoops, wrong keybinding. I guess that was on-list. Sorry, Caroline.
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 3:39 PM Coraline Ada Ehmke
wrote:
> Hostile takeover is very strong language, and I believe a gross
> misunderstanding of my goal (speaking now for myself, not the movement.)
> The OSD was written in 1998 with some very specific goals. It has been a
> wild success. Open sou
* Coraline Ada Ehmke:
> The Hippocratic License, for example, does not discriminate against
> any person or group, nor against any field of endeavor. It simply
> states that the software may not be used in the commission of human
> rights violations. This is not a liberal vs conservative position;
18 matches
Mail list logo
