On 1/18/21 2:08 PM, Gil Yehuda wrote:
> I’m not suggesting the OSI consider this license as an open source
> candidate. I’m suggesting that if employees at Big Companies encounter
> code licensed under this license, they can be glad they are people, and
> people get to use this code for whatever th
On 18/01/2021 22:08, Gil Yehuda wrote:
This license seems to be snagged by the anthropomorphism we tend to use
when we talk about companies.
It's more than an anthropomorphism. Companies are legal persons, and
most commercial law that applies to human beings (legally: natural
persons) also a
I’m wondering if this license is OSD compliant by accident. Re-read the
initial question on this thread and you’ll see that this license does not
say what the author seems to wish it did.
Meaning: I don’t see how this license (as written) prevents employees at a
Big Company from using the code to
On Monday 18 January 2021 02:23, Kevin P. Fleming wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 17, 2021 at 8:13 PM Tenorgil wrote:
> >
> > Can you clarify this phrase
> >
> > You can basically do whatever you want, as long as you are not a company
> > with shareholders employing lots of people
> >
> > What does it mean
There is, of course, a contradiction with OSD "non-discrimination"
principles here, but, as a - very occasional - License Discuss contributor,
I would like to highlight another point that is present in a lot of
contributions (and could be submitted as a question to nearly all license
steward candid
