Well that's unfortunate. Consider that anybody who is developing open
source software in a cathedral manner is doing a form of delayed open
source. The only difference is that they don't distribute the version
under development. I think people's dislike of delayed Open Source is
the anti-marke
It's harmful, but it's part of what people give up in order to get the
benefit of whatever the proprietary software does. Just like you get
"free" OTA TV (apologies to our British friends) by having commercials
interjected. You get "free" web applications by having commercials in
the interstice
Jesus, Bradley.
On 10/29/23 18:57, Bradley M. Kuhn wrote:
Russ, thanks for clarifying this point as one of OSI's leaders.
Russell Nelson wrote at 19:32 (PDT) on Friday:
We [speaking for OSI] don't criticize people for producing proprietary
software.
Various OSI leaders have indi
Producing open source software isn't a bad thing, even if you don't get
it immediately. OSI's position toward proprietary software has always
been that the proprietary nature has a cost in terms of outside
contributions to your software. I mean, I never knew that the Pep Boys
were using my Toke
On 12/13/22 22:48, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
Brad and the OSI have ONLY the authority to determine whether licenses
satisfy the Open Source Definition AND NOTHING MORE.
Yesbut. We are also the representatives of the idea of Open Source to
the community. As such, we have a responsibility to promote
Further, since this seems a reasonable change, why not present it to
Apache as a friendly amendment and see if they want to make it into an
Apache 2.1 license? I mean, if it's good for Disney, why wouldn't it be
good for everyone else?
-russ
On 2/6/21 8:29 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
You probably
gelist
t: +33 (0)6 63 13 79 06
antoine.tho...@prestashop.com <mailto:antoine.tho...@prestashop.com>
On Mon, 25 Jan 2021 at 16:36, Russell Nelson <mailto:nel...@crynwr.com>> wrote:
On 1/24/21 12:22 PM, Mat K. Witts wrote:
> On 22/01/2021 00:29, McCoy Smith wrote:
>
On 1/25/21 9:13 AM, Nigel T wrote:
exploit an ambiguity in the letter of the OSD
Not even, Nigel. There is no ambiguity in the word "group". People can
group together in all sorts of formal or informal ways. We don't care. A
group is any group of more than one person. Doesn't matter if they'r
On 1/24/21 12:22 PM, Mat K. Witts wrote:
On 22/01/2021 00:29, McCoy Smith wrote:
A corporation is a group of natural persons.
Not on it's own,
Yes, on its own. It's a group. You intend to discriminate, we intend for
you to not discriminate. Stop. End of sentence. EOT. Ctrl-D. ^D. You're
don
On 1/20/21 7:20 PM, Mat K. Witts wrote:
Just to be really clear, leftcopy does not discriminate against human
beings from using the licensed code,
Just to be really clear, the *purpose* of leftcopy is to discriminate
against a group.
As such, there is no waffling, no indecision, no wiggle ro
On 1/19/21 2:58 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
No, the engineers acting on behalf of the company are agents of the
legal person (“juristische Person” in Germany), and as such it’s the
company that’s doing the using.
They *could* be programming in their spare time?
https://youtu.be/ohDB5gbtaEQ?t=17
On 1/16/21 7:05 PM, Mat K. Witts wrote:
It features one added restriction that only applies to legal entities having
shareholders entitled to receive dividends from profits and employing more
people than the license allows.
Not open source. We have approved licenses which give some people
gr
On 12/28/20 10:31 AM, Pamela Chestek wrote:
It is a misperception to think that there is any "non-binding" part of
a legal document.
Which means that we should be very wary of allowing text which takes
away freedoms. E.g.:
The XYZ license permits you to do anything you want (but you
sh
On 8/18/20 4:57 PM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
Lawrence Rosen dixit:
This has been proposed before. What is different now is that the Public
Software Fund is going to stand behind this process, and defend the
project's editor against lawsuits by any licensors who object to this
relicense.
I’m not
We've all seen the vast variety of BSD licenses. You know the ones I
mean: "Do what you want with the code, but if you change it, you can't
mis-represent it as the same thing. We don't include any warranty
because you didn't pay us for one."
I propose that we find two things:
1. A pair of BSD
On 5/1/20 7:26 AM, Anton Shepelev wrote:
Hello, all
May I ask a question in this mailing list about the interpretation
of a license for a commercial product? Although it would be
patently off-topic, I don't know of another place where one may
seek help of people converstant in legalese.
Any op
On 3/27/20 5:19 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
- A feedback period of 15 months is required before the actual removal
takes place.
That's way too long. If we can't find anybody using the license, AND the
original submitter agrees, we remove it immediately. The only reason to
delay removal is because
On 3/20/20 7:35 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
So I think the plain meaning, and the conventional understanding,
of OSD 5 & 6 is “you cannot put any restriction against any user,
or use, of the software, in an open source license”
Remember that the argument I’m making here is precisely tha
On 3/20/20 7:02 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
I’m reporting on a point of view commonly held within the community.
That view has always existed. Some people don't want to delegate the
name "open source" to the OSI. Never have, never will. Their presence in
the community shouldn't deter us from repres
On 3/20/20 6:43 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
Committing genocide is clearly not a field of endeavor as defined by
section 6 of the OSD,
It is exactly and precisely a field of endeavor. OSD#6 doesn't define
"field of endeavor", it makes reference to the idea.
Yes, that's an absurd example, but mo
On 3/20/20 4:39 PM, Nigel T wrote:
You guys should have at least trademarked the "open" badge that the
ESD has now taken).
You mean the green circle open at the bottom? We did trademark that, and
registered it. Can you link to where they are using the "open" badge?
On 3/20/20 2:46 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote:
I'm involved in the community for the very values which certain
individuals wish to expunge. There is no mechanism for both
communities to consider themselves the same community, so either
values come in common or people go elsewhere.
Schisms happen
On 3/20/20 12:55 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
Currently section 5 and 6 are vague (in particular the term "field of
endeavor") and imho an ethical licenses could be written that complied
with the OSD.
OSD #6 is specifically there to prevent a license from restricting
licensees whom a licensor does
On 3/20/20 10:11 AM, John Cowan wrote:
For OSI the effect is even stronger than for UL. Every time OSI
denies certification on grounds other than non-conformance to the OSD
(such as redundancy, lack of templatification, etc.), it implicitly
concedes that OSI Certified (tm) and open source are
On 3/20/20 8:48 AM, Russell McOrmond wrote:
Note I’m not saying: “change the OSD to allow ethical licenses,”
I’m saying “work hand in hand to account for the concerns of the
broader community to find reasonable solutions that meet those
concerns.”
We have already accounted for
On 3/19/20 11:23 AM, John Cowan wrote:
On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:17 AM Russell Nelson <mailto:nel...@crynwr.com>> wrote:
On 3/18/20 12:40 PM, John Cowan wrote:
> Note that I am fully supportive of the position that there may
be and
> are Open Source l
On 3/18/20 12:40 PM, John Cowan wrote:
Note that I am fully supportive of the position that there may be and
are Open Source licenses, in the sense of meeting the OSD's terms,
that are not OSI Certified (TM).
Who decides that?
___
License-discus
On 3/18/20 10:27 AM, Tobie Langel wrote:
If the goal is to deter the conversation from happening here, it’s
quite effective. If it’s not, please be aware that this is what if
feels like to those that are on the receiving end of this.
Yes! The goal is to deter the conversation, because there is
On 3/17/20 6:14 PM, Tobie Langel wrote:
If OSI is to be the custodian of open source, it needs to be
representative of the open source community at large. Not based on a
winner takes model, which is, by definition, not representative.
Sure, but Ethical Software isn't Open Source. That's what w
On 3/18/20 4:51 AM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
But why would you sum up Coraline and Tobie?
Because Coraline is trying to bolster Coarline's poor showing in the OSI
elections by double-counting the 11% of OSI membership who voted for
both Coraline and Tobie. Coraline thinks that Coraline should get
On 3/17/20 6:07 PM, McCoy Smith wrote:
From which, I would conclude, the winners got substantial majorities
of the voters, and no one else did, even if we combine candidates
based on platforms. So they really deserve a seat at the table;
everyone else, probably not.
Why would you combine candid
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?
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
On 3/15/20 8:19 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote:
On Mar 15, 2020, at 7:07 PM, Russell Nelson <mailto:nel...@crynwr.com>> 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
On 3/15/20 12:06 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote:
Just because software license agreements aren't an appropriate avenue
to express a specific public policy concern doesn't mean that the OSI
isn't an appropriate organization to work with for people wishing to
do that type of policy work.
OSI exists t
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 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
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
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
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
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
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 it grants rights downstream, but doesn’t give the creators
any real rights. And that’s a major difference between open and
#E
On 3/9/20 4:52 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote:
Not responding to this thread anymore, feel free to carry on without me.
No response to my observation that the OSD and ESD solve different
problems (one the distribution and changing of software and the other
use of software)? None? That's actua
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 3/6/20 4:47 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote:
On Mar 6, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Russell Nelson wrote:
I do NOT like the idea of ethical open source. It completely turns the idea of "forking
without permission" into "you can only run this software if I think you are a good
p
On 3/6/20 7:22 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote:
“Hostile takeover” is not a goal of the Ethical Source Movement.
Yes, it is. The Ethical Source Definition is hostile to the Open Source
Definition -- that's why you want to change it. You want to take our
authority, against our will, and use it to
On 3/6/20 7:22 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote:
(I can’t think of a single example in the modern world where “evil
people” enjoy the same full set of rights and privileges as the rest
of a community.)
Evil people still have the right to speak freely (&etc). The First
Amendment doesn't have an "e
On 3/4/20 2:30 PM, Michael Bretti wrote:
4. How can open source innovation be protected? Especially in my case
were I am working on very high-tech systems in a highly competitive,
and normally very secretive and non-transparent field, how can I make
sure that I get credit, or protect myself fro
May I recommend Don Lancaster's The Incredible Secret Money Machine?
On 3/4/20 2:30 PM, Michael Bretti wrote:
As I progress into more high performance and potentially innovative
systems however, I increasingly need to worry about protecting myself
and my work from competition, being open-sour
On 3/6/20 10:07 AM, Jim Jagielski wrote:
Again, I personally like the idea of ethical open source, but I don't see how
it fits into the OSD, nor should it. As an external branch, ala InnerSource, it
makes better sense.
I do NOT like the idea of ethical open source. It completely turns the
id
On 2/29/20 8:26 PM, Rick Moen wrote:
Quoting McCoy Smith (mc...@lexpan.law):
License-approval only goes back to December, 2007; license-discuss
goes back to 1999, but as far as I can tell doesn’t include complete
discussion about approvals of licenses from 1999-2007 (those
discussions are on n
On 2/29/20 5:12 AM, Grahame Grieve wrote:
This precludes discrimination against illegal activities, either in
the source or user jurisdiction, right? Has this ever been tested in
court? (E.g. an open source library that was a key contributor to
empowering an illegal activity is targeted for al
There are, as one might expect, multiple aspects of this idea.
Is it legally enforceable? Not even lawyers can answer that question
because it depends (as Larry Rosen once said) on which side of the bed
the judge has gotten up on. Probably a better question is whether you
intend the new terms
53 matches
Mail list logo
