* Jim Jagielski:
> Just say that, for example, we were having this discussion 10 years
> ago, and that the elephant in the room, as persona-non-grata was
> Microsoft. And say that there was s/w that was under such an ethical
> license that prevented or severely restricted Microsoft from using
> it
* Russell McOrmond:
> When you have a license agreement that discusses specific policy goals, and
> doesn't grant a license if you carry out specific activities incompatible
> with those goals, that isn't as quickly going to come up against the
> non-discrimination core of software freedom.
>
> As
I’ve been trying to cultivate the ability to extract actionable and
constructive feedback from even rude, confrontational, dismissive, personal, or
smug criticism. Thank you all for engaging, no matter if your criticism was
well-intended or no, and most importantly for giving me the opportunity
Weird, I sent this out at 10am and it doesn’t appear to have gone out and
doesn’t show up in the archives.
> On Mar 9, 2020, at 10:02 AM, Nigel T wrote:
>
>
> That’s a distinction without a difference since the licensor gets to decide
> what is or isn’t a human rights violation. So your ow
* Coraline Ada Ehmke:
> Can you provide an example of an ethical source license that is
> based on a controversial social or political line?
Not sure if I understand the question correctly, but:
Some proponents of the GPL cite ethical reasons for implementing it.
Copyleft is a controversial soci
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
A few weeks ago I said that if I really wanted to know about "ethical
source licensing" I would join the ethical source licensing discussion
group. I was thinking at the time that I'm actually interested in open
source licensing -- which is why I'm in *this* group. But I thought --
maybe I *should*
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 11:21 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Coraline Ada Ehmke:
>
> > Can you provide an example of an ethical source license that is
> > based on a controversial social or political line?
>
> Not sure if I understand the question correctly, but:
>
> Some proponents of the GPL cit
On Tue, Mar 10, 2020 at 12:35 PM Russell Nelson wrote:
>
> 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
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
> #EthicalSource — ethical source is abou
>>-Original Message-
>>From: License-discuss On
>>Behalf Of Pamela Chestek
>>Sent: Tuesday, March 10, 2020 12:32 PM
>>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses
>>On 3/10/2020 1:32 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote:
>>>
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
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 ethical restrictions are careful, and that this
pl
13 matches
Mail list logo
