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

On Wed, Mar 11, 2020, at 18:06, Pamela Chestek wrote: > 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? No, it is not. ..m -- Mark Atwood Principal - Open Source

Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

On 3/15/2020 8:19 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote: > >> On Mar 15, 2020, at 7:07 PM, Russell Nelson > > wrote: >> >>  Ethical software is by definition not open source.  > > Can you point to any specific points in the definition of Ethical Open > Source that conflicts with t

Re: [License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory licensing

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 12:38 PM Kevin P. Fleming wrote: > > This sounds vaguely similar to MPL 2.0. Or EPL. > > On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:44 AM McCoy Smith wrote: > > > > From: License-discuss On > > Behalf Of Russell McOrmond > > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 6:40 AM > > To: license-disc

Re: [License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory licensing

This sounds vaguely similar to MPL 2.0. On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 11:44 AM McCoy Smith wrote: > > From: License-discuss On > Behalf Of Russell McOrmond > Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 6:40 AM > To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org > Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory lice

Re: [License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory licensing

From: License-discuss On Behalf Of Russell McOrmond Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 6:40 AM To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory licensing About your separation of source and binary -- is the idea to not require "corresponding s

Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

On 3/15/20 10:06 PM, McCoy Smith wrote: *From:* License-discuss *On Behalf Of *Coraline Ada Ehmke *Sent:* Sunday, March 15, 2020 5:45 PM *To:* license-discuss@lists.opensource.org *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

On 3/15/20 8:26 PM, Brendan Hickey wrote: "It encourages fair compensation. The software project’s maintainers may, at their discretion, request remuneration in the form of code contributions, financial consideration, or other forms of voluntary support from organizations that derive commercial

Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

From: Jasper Horn Sent: Monday, March 16, 2020 5:39 AM To: mc...@lexpan.law; license-discuss@lists.opensource.org Subject: Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements? ESD Fragment for context: > The software project’s maintainers may, at

Re: [License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory licensing

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 9:23 AM Brendan Hickey wrote: > Separate from the question of feasibility is the policy question. Is > strong non-discrimination desirable in open source software licensing? > I think it is desirable to have a community around specific software able to protect itself from

[License-discuss] Strong non-discriminatory licensing

I've been giving some thought to the feasibility of a permissive licensing with strong non-discriminatory provisions -- being incompatible with licenses that violating OSD 5 or 6, rather than just itself abiding by the clauses. It seems clear that we can accomplish this goal with copyleft licenses

Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

On 3/15/20 8:19 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote: On Mar 15, 2020, at 7:07 PM, Russell Nelson > wrote: Ethical software is by definition not open source. Can you point to any specific points in the definition of Ethical Open Source that conflicts with the OSD? (I’m not

Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

Oh, it seems the Ethical Source definition recently changed. Those changes look good! To disambiguate, I'm referring to the [EOS] linked below, as opposed to the previous [ESD]. (Please consider adding a version number!) As far as I can see, this EOS definition is potentially compatible with the O