I haven’t been able to post but I can’t tell if it’s my phone or if I’m blocked.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Feb 28, 2020, at 12:07 PM, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
>
> So sorry, that should be singular, modera...@opensource.org
>
>> On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 5:04 PM John Cowan wrote:
>> Sorry to respo
Josh you are always welcome to use my public conversations on this list in
your blog, with attribution. I appreciate the nod.
I'm not planning on blogging about this. I was going to record a podcast
today and then after doing a walkthrough of the talking points we decided
against it. My experience
On 3/12/20 8:12 AM, Gil Yehuda via License-discuss wrote:
> 1. I created this code.
> 2. I seek to display it for others to see. Perhaps comment, improve, or
> at least recognize me for it.
> 3. I seek to allow many people to use this code too.
> 4. For a particular set of reasons, I don't want som
Please do avoid attaching points of view to any specific characteristic
of a group or individual, whether it's gender, age, nationality,
ethnicity, religion, hair color, or Star Wars/Star Trek. It's an easy
way to offend someone you didn't mean to offend and then any valid point
you hoped to make w
From: License-discuss On Behalf
Of Russell McOrmond
Sent: Thursday, March 12, 2020 4:57 AM
To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses
I recognise that this reminder will be annoying to some, but the FSF and OSI
have
On Thu, Mar 12, 2020 at 11:30 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> If you strip away dog whistling and provocative terms that often bring out
> less productive discussions, there is something similar here to other
> "source-available but restricted" id
If you strip away dog whistling and provocative terms that often bring out
less productive discussions, there is something similar here to other
"source-available but restricted" ideas. The generic shape of the argument
in simplified form:
1. I created this code.
2. I seek to display it for others
On 3/11/20 10:05 PM, andrew.dema wrote:
> There is no mutual ground for discussion
I'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
c
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 8:41 PM Josh Berkus wrote:
> I'm disappointed in the discussion too, but in my case because it
> focused entirely on historical baggage and didn't ever really discuss
> the merits of ethical clauses (or lack thereof).
>
This is exactly what I and others have been posting
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 9:35 PM Russell Nelson wrote:
> 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 the DISTRIBUTION of software.
I recognise that this remind
Quoting Grahame Grieve (grah...@healthintersections.com.au):
> 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
> move
Quoting Russell McOrmond (russellmcorm...@gmail.com):
> Using the loaded term "ethics" in the title of a group has the same
> poisonous effects on conversations, essentially suggesting that anyone who
> disagrees with the methods of the group are somehow "unethical".
>
> I believe everyone unders
12 matches
Mail list logo
