As I said, it's time to shut this conversation down. No one's mind is
going to be changed no matter how logical or illogical the arguments.
Pam
Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative
On 2/1/2021 5:17 AM, Antoine Thomas via License-discuss wrote:
I would like to illustr
I would like to illustrate with a simplified example.
Let's say I am building special cars for a niche market in small quantities
(e.g. for people with disabilities). I am an individual, and I work with
other individuals, we are not incorporated (that would be foolish because
of the risk, but, any
On Tuesday 26 January 2021 17:07, Mat K. Witts wrote:
> > Yes, on its own. It's a group.
>
> Show me the group then. What/who does it contain that is not either an
> officer, shareholder, subsidiary company, customer, client or
> representative officer. When you strike out a company, nobody ceases
I believe this line of discussion, whether or not corporations are
people, has been exhausted and no minds are going to be changed. I
suggest it's time to end it.
Pam
Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative
On 1/26/2021 11:24 AM, Mat K. Witts wrote:
This thread consist
> This thread consists of the list offering consensus that your license fails
> the OSD and you replying “nope, you guys are all wrong”
That a good description, yes, and yet replies like this one don't fit that
description, so that may need further explanation. Many of my replies involve
me agr
> Yes, on its own. It's a group.
Show me the group then. What/who does it contain that is not either an
officer, shareholder, subsidiary company, customer, client or
representative officer. When you strike out a company, nobody ceases to
exist, it's just the legal entity. That ought to tell you al
On 25/01/2021 03:19, Russell Nelson wrote:
> Just to be really clear, the *purpose* of leftcopy is to discriminate
> against a group.
Nope. Company officers, ('the board'), shareholders, customers,
affiliates, subsidiary undertakings can all use leftcopy.
> As such, there is no waffling, no indecis
Feel free!
On 1/25/21 10:55 AM, Antoine Thomas via License-discuss wrote:
Russel, I think that you should put this quotation in a Frame:
"The whole point behind Open Source is the same point behind Free
Software -- to transfer the power to discriminate between users to the
users themselves. It'
Russel, I think that you should put this quotation in a Frame:
"The whole point behind Open Source is the same point behind Free
Software -- to transfer the power to discriminate between users to the
users themselves. It's the users who decide whether they want to use the
software or not. Open Sou
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
This thread consists of the list offering consensus that your license fails the
OSD and you replying “nope, you guys are all wrong”
Sorry, but you don’t get to define what the OSD says or even what OSI’s
historical interpretation of the OSD...aka the spirit of the law.
And you also don’t get to
On 22/01/2021 00:29, McCoy Smith wrote:
> A corporation is a group of natural persons.
Not on it's own, (your second assertion diminishes this). Presumably,
you are wanting to mean 'shareholders', or possibly you want to also
include a combination of 'directors' or maybe 'employees or 'customers'?
> 1. Would this license comply with OSD?
This question hinges upon the interpretation of TWO things. The license
text AND the OSD. The license text is worded more far more carefully
than the OSD since the terms are definitive in the license text. The
only key word that is not defined in the licens
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
Mat, I have questions to raise aloud:
1. Would this license comply with OSD?
2. Should the OSI licensing board consider the above question?
3. Who does this benefit and how?
The first question hinges upon the interpretation of the license text. It’s
not carefully worded, requiring you to explain t
> -Original Message-
> From: License-discuss On
> Behalf Of Mat K. Witts
> Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2021 4:20 PM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] OSI definition
>
>
> Just to be really clear, leftcopy does not
There is a lot of latitude around how licenses work in the wild, how
people work in teams, how judges come to decisions on licensing, how
lawyers write licenses and the legal implications of companies and so on
and so forth. Sticking strictly to the license texts and then comparing
them to the OSI'
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
> I’m wondering if this license is OSD compliant by accident.
I think it is, yes. It is not motivated by the OSD but seems to comply
only an afterthought after having read the OSI's OSD definition.
> Meaning: I don’t see how this license (as written) prevents employees
> at a Big Company from using
Quoting Gil Yehuda (tenor...@gmail.com):
> 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) prevent
David Woolley dixit:
> On 18/01/2021 22:08, Gil Yehuda wrote:
>>A team of engineers at any
>>company can use the code under the terms of the license, for anything they
>>please. They can make a product for profit. Only the company itself
No, the engineers acting on behalf of the company are agen
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
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 if “you” (presumably a person) is not a company (a legal
> concept). If
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 if “you” (presumably a person) is not a company (a legal
concept). If all the employees of
Mat K. Witts dixit:
>Are there any objections to this interpretation?
Yes.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God a
21 4:06 PM
> To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
> Subject: [License-discuss] OSI definition
>
> The Open Source Definition (Annotated) is located on the internet at
> https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
>
> Section 5, 'No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups'
On 17/01/2021 00:05, Mat K. Witts wrote:
employing more people than the license allows
Open source licence cannot limit the number of people allowed.
___
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the O
The Open Source Definition (Annotated) is located on the internet at
https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
Section 5, 'No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups' states, 'The license
must not discriminate against any person or group of persons'. The Rationale
concludes: '[...] we forbid any op
34 matches
Mail list logo
