Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

Quoting Russell Nelson (nel...@crynwr.com): > On 3/11/20 8:10 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > >didn't ever really discuss the merits of ethical clauses (or lack thereof). > > Yes, I did. Went through all of them one by one, showing that they > were not compatible with the OSD, and analyzed the idea of p

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

> There is no mutual ground for discussionI'm glad you've come to such a > decisive conclusion. If you don't mind, we all get to make that decision for > ourselves as well as when to stop soliciting feedback. If you have nothing to > add or feel it is not compatible, that's fine you may be right

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

I wonder if we've reached a point where we're having a discussion about how to have a discussion. Is that a productive use of time? Pam Chair, License Committee Open Source Initiative ___ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

On 3/11/20 8:10 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: didn't ever really discuss the merits of ethical clauses (or lack thereof). Yes, I did. Went through all of them one by one, showing that they were not compatible with the OSD, and analyzed the idea of putting restrictions on the USE of software versus t

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

I'd second the push for the use of a tool like discourse especially in a mode like mailing list mode to grant everyone part of what they want eg. The ability to continue using an email client and mailing list emails as well as a more modern method of contributing and learning from previous discu

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:47 PM Rick Moen wrote: > Impugning motives openly in a public discussion tends to have a variety > of poisonous effects, Rick, Using the loaded term "ethics" in the title of a group has the same poisonous effects on conversations, essentially suggesting that anyone wh

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

On 3/11/20 4:33 PM, Gil Yehuda wrote: > > My current feeling is disappointment in the conversation and I'm less > enthusiastic about seeing this play out. Largely because I think they > are looking to achieve a different goal. They may be relieved that I'll > ask fewer questions and make fewer sug

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

Josh, Rick, you both make very good points. I'll reinforce: I do not know other people's motivations. My observations (also informed by participating on the ethical source working group channels) is that there is a distance in terms of shared objectives. That suggests faith in different outcomes, b

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

On 3/11/20 2:33 PM, Gil Yehuda via License-discuss wrote: > This topic is very important and we're all passionate about it. Written > text in email groups is notoriously bad for conveying nuance. I was > hoping to come across more balanced than perhaps I did. My essential > message is that as a dis

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

Josh thank you. This topic is very important and we're all passionate about it. Written text in email groups is notoriously bad for conveying nuance. I was hoping to come across more balanced than perhaps I did. My essential message is that as a discussion list we're most effective toward our goals

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

Quoting Gil Yehuda via License-discuss (license-discuss@lists.opensource.org): > I think discussions are good. But Coraline's message this morning is > that she's not continuing to be part of this discussion. Moreover her > message indicates that she's been gathering feedback from this > discussio

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

On 3/11/20 1:09 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote: > On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 9:42 AM Josh Berkus > wrote: > > Coraline showed *tremendous* patience with a list discussion not exactly > marked by good faith or good manners on the part of at least half the > posts.  You

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On 3/11/20 1:37 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote: > Can we avoid defining viewpoints by stereotyping? I daresay there are > many people over and under 40 in both the woke and unwoke categories. > Perhaps we can define the category by the belief, not by the assumed age > of the member. "There are a lot of

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

Can we avoid defining viewpoints by stereotyping? I daresay there are many people over and under 40 in both the woke and unwoke categories. Perhaps we can define the category by the belief, not by the assumed age of the member. Thanks, Pam Pamela Chestek Chair, License Review Committee Open Sourc

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 3:34 PM Josh Berkus wrote: > But I'm talking about going beyond that -- using the Vaccine License to > explain why we have OSD 5 in the first place, because devs under 40 do > not believe in the OSD. It needs to be explained. Stay tuned. > I think we have recently seen e

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

Quoting Pamela Chestek (pam...@chesteklegal.com): > Have you been reading the rationale documents I've been writing (for > both approved and unapproved licenses) since I became chair? Is that not > what you mean? > > CALv1: > https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Archived+Discussions+on+Not+Approved+Li

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 9:42 AM Josh Berkus wrote: > Coraline showed *tremendous* patience with a list discussion not exactly > marked by good faith or good manners on the part of at least half the > posts. Your attempt to portray her as some kind of villian for leaving > the list should be well

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

All, We'd like to remind everyone that ad hominem attacks are not acceptable and will ultimately lead to negative consequences for the sender. If anyone believes that an email was inappropriate, either expressly or implicitly, please bring it to the moderators' attention. Thanks, Pam Pamela Ches

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 11:48, Josh Berkus wrote: > explain why we have OSD 5 in the first place, because devs under 40 do > not believe in the OSD. It needs to be explained. Speaking for myself, some if not many of us folks under 40 both in fact understand why discrimination is bad, and also

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On 3/11/20 11:36 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote: > > On 3/11/2020 1:42 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> On 3/11/20 6:56 AM, Russell Nelson wrote: I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an unpassable license on our website. >>> Not listing unpassable examples is a long-stan

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On 3/11/2020 1:42 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: > On 3/11/20 6:56 AM, Russell Nelson wrote: >>> I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an >>> unpassable license on our website. >> Not listing unpassable examples is a long-standing policy decision. We >> have plenty of example

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On 3/11/20 1:42 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: On 3/11/20 6:56 AM, Russell Nelson wrote: I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an unpassable license on our website. Not listing unpassable examples is a long-standing policy decision. We have plenty of examples of what pass

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On 3/11/20 6:56 AM, Russell Nelson wrote: >> I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an >> unpassable license on our website. > > Not listing unpassable examples is a long-standing policy decision. We > have plenty of examples of what passes muster. I've never seen why w

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On 3/11/20 10:01 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote: On 3/11/2020 9:56 AM, Russell Nelson wrote: On 3/10/20 8:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an unpassable license on our website. Not listing unpassable examples is a long-standing policy dec

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On 3/11/2020 9:56 AM, Russell Nelson wrote: > On 3/10/20 8:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: >> I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an >> unpassable license on our website. > > Not listing unpassable examples is a long-standing policy decision. We > have plenty of examples

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

Speaking personally, I support anyone who wants to use a software license for whatever ends important to them. The problem I have is that picking and choosing who may use software is not reconcilable with the current OSD, which has over 20 years of proven successful track record. Open source is eat

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On 3/10/20 8:27 PM, Josh Berkus wrote: I still say we should use the Vaccine License as a case example of an unpassable license on our website. Not listing unpassable examples is a long-standing policy decision. We have plenty of examples of what passes muster. I've never seen why we need to

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

On 3/10/20 11:13 PM, Grahame Grieve wrote: The question for me is whether there's some useful middle ground. Is there value in having an ethical use license where the creator gives up many but not all rights, in a way that respects some core tenets of the open source movement, and where the eth

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

I'm struggling to understand what enforcement mechanism they can use...because there isn't one legally that I can see... On 3/10/20 3:32 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote: > On 3/10/2020 1:32 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote: >> "I think the fundamental thing that bothers me the most about the OSD >> 1.x is that

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

Your licenses will fall apart on legal scrutiny. That's the issue, your licenses will not stop the humans rights violations you're trying to stop. They simply won't. Why? because you're not using frameworks to prevent such use with the backing of international law. On 3/6/20 4:47 PM, Coraline Ada

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

I've pointed out my concerns multiple times on Twitter. It's a cute thought experiment, but unfortunately will fall apart on legal scrutiny. I could see a court completely invalidating the Hippocratic License for example, either in whole or just the parts that exclude those like ICE, Palentir, etc.

Re: [License-discuss] What should fit in a FOSS license?

On 3/9/20 2:09 PM, Michael Downey wrote: > 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

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

Odd, I sent this yesterday and it never seemed to appear. > On Mar 9, 2020, at 10:02 AM, Nigel T wrote: > >  > 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: >

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

On 3/10/20 9:18 AM, Gil Yehuda via License-discuss wrote: > I think discussions are good. But Coraline's message this morning is > that she's not continuing to be part of this discussion. Moreover her > message indicates that she's been gathering feedback from this > discussion in service to enhanc

Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:32 PM Grahame Grieve < grah...@healthintersections.com.au> wrote: > The question for me is whether there's some useful middle ground. Is there > value in having an ethical use license where the creator gives up many but > not all rights, in a way that respects some core