goal, or
something entirely different? I can't at all tell from your usage what
your intended meaning is.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights
as owners of Information Technology. Sig
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019, 11:44 Ofer wrote:
> Let me clarify, I don't determine that, you do :-)
> You use the code, you "Make sure your use of the software complies with
> your own ethical standards", and you decide on the support $ amount.
>
You appear to have confused readme.txt and license.txt .
I will register my standard objection, which is that 2.2 seems to attempt
to restrict private modification. Many countries are starting to recognise
the harm of claiming restrictions on private copying under copyright, so
this reads as an attempt to circumvent in contract law a limitation or
excep
focusing on tools (access to source code is an
important tool, not the goal, of software freedom).
Thanks
>
Also thanks :-)
My hope is that the FLOSS community will be able to resolve these issues
before things diverge too much. I've spent the majority of my life
believing I was par
On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 9:50 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
>
> I'm not sure if it can be considered a good policy argument, but my point
> of
> view is that it's - at the very least - ethically questionable to take
> source
> code that the author clearly intended to be libre, improve upon it, and
> th
othetical. There are enhancements to software
I've decided not to author because the original software was licensed under
the AGPL.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights
as owners of Inf
tours of current US
law, but how what the OSI does impacts the legislative process globally.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights
as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://
It
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 6:46 AM Johnny A. Solbu wrote:
> Then you are effectively demanding registration.
> That is still not allowed in Free and Open Source software, meaning, that
> makes it Not Free and Open Source.
> I belive the Free Software Foundation would even call it proprietary.
>
>
On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 8:45 AM Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> On Friday, 9 August 2019 05:36:26 CEST Russell McOrmond wrote:
> > Curious: Since I have the capability to write software, but I decide not
> to
> > write some specific software, does that constitute a restriction on the
dian legal concepts -- we are about to have a federal election, which
is when all candidates will be listening more than usual. (But all that
needs to be coordinated outside this list, as OSI itself can't be seen to
be lobbying any government),
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <ht
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:30 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 8:15 PM Russell McOrmond <
> russellmcorm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am left puzzled how the Affero clauses, which also
Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
>
> ___
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
--
Russ
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:30 AM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2019 at 7:34 PM Russell McOrmond <
> russellmcorm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Is it the act of me typing the software into my computer that of
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 12:38 PM Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
> Why does my wish for derivative works of certain software to be available
> to
> the public (and legitimate use of the law to achieve that) bother you so
> much?
> Why your fixation on "compensation"?
>
I am offended by any alleged legiti
er language" as an
exception relating to software. Already I believe these demands by
copyright holders against private activities wouldn't be enforceable in
Canada, although until these types of licenses are tested in court we won't
know for certain.
Thanks
>
> B
On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 2:38 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:00 AM Russell McOrmond <
> russellmcorm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> I am offended by any alleged legitimac
ssions about whether and how specific business practises
should be regulated are on-topic within software licenses, or within this
forum that is intended to be focused on discussing software licenses. Many
of us have expressed agreement with the need to regulate specific business
practis
ew
and quite controvercial. I strongly believe that these forced
contributions are contrary to the FSF's 4 freedoms and the OSI's OSD, but
it is obvious that this is not yet a decided discussion.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tel
SF or OSI for
those of us who want to work with organizations that don't cross that
"bridge too far" into allegedly protecting software freedom through
regulating private uses.
> /Larry
>
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us
l tools impossible as it would have been considered acceptable for
the vendors of software to dictate terms to the licensees about their
relationships with third parties (such as other software vendors, etc).
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help
"public interface", that the software and any
modifications are no longer private as the interface makes the software
public. Many of us will disagree with this use of language. Being very
clear on the defined vocabulary will hopefully avoid some of these
conflicts on language.
--
Russel
e, but it will take some work to understanding the different
motivations of people within each of these to know which model applies to
which license tool.
tl;dr: People who say "one size fits most" mean "one size fits me."
>
:-)
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consul
ht be extended copyright, but I see no purpose to extending it beyond
humans at this point in human history. And especially not to automated
processes or AI.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our propert
ept by the
FSF, or approval by the FSF of a specific license embodying a concept,
should not be considered binding on the OSI. The FSF is not infallible,
and as with any other organisation has made its own share of mistakes.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Pleas
and will always believe that this concept would be
the end of the purpose behind Free Software and Open Source software. The
world is becoming increasingly politically divided, and we should not be
inviting this into this movement. Lets not launch OSIxit and FSFxit.
--
Russell McOrmond, Intern
license, etc) which discusses those software related issues is
on-topic for a FLOSS license, which is why the content in the GPL is
generally considered acceptable. Diverge away from software specific
policies and you are expressing topics which are counterproductive to the
goals of FLOS
fend each others software freedom, regardless of our personal political
views outside of software freedom.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 8:21 PM VanL wrote:
> Further, if we really believe in the importance of ideas, and the
> importance of speech to express those ideas, even ones we disagree with, we
> should act in a fashion that allows us the broadest exposure to those
> different ideas. Sharp language r
and not be critiqued for your unwillingness to
accept these fundamental tennants, then you are free to create your own
mailing lists.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can p
urce
for their own personal political gain.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable
media player from my cold d
On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 11:31 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> I'm exploring the psychological relationship between the author of a work,
> and the work. i.e. parsing the phrase "my open source code" and would like
> your thoughts.
>
What you appe
any code I author can be shared with the appropriate FLOSS
projects. I don't care who holds the copyright, as long as the appropriate
FLOSS license agreement and the contribution is enabled by the employment
contract (and yes, I have negotiated changes to otherwise standard
contracts with IBM, Fuji
ice are cloud service users, not
software users).
Would I contribute to a copyleft-next project, even one where the "first"
developer opted out of that clause? Probably not.
I know I've strayed away from "ethical source", but I believe we have
enough controvers
On Sun, Mar 8, 2020 at 3:39 PM Coraline Ada Ehmke
wrote:
> Hostile takeover is very strong language, and I believe a gross
> misunderstanding of my goal (speaking now for myself, not the movement.)
> The OSD was written in 1998 with some very specific goals. It has been a
> wild success. Open sou
hts,
including alleged religious rights (some of which are enforced in some
countries), would exclude me from using the software as I am a long-time
activist in support of contradicting human rights.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
"The government, lobbied by l
t that time. Time
has moved on and I'm no longer skeptical -- I strongly believe that
software should be held to a level of accountability and transparency not
expected of traditional literary works, and should not have the same type
of copyright. And I am a strong opponent to software pate
der to to oppose my policy goals. I find it
hard to understand why a group that wants the work of authors to not be
abused by others seems to be so willing to do so themselves.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
"The government, lobbied by legacy cop
r against Microsoft,
Microsoft had agreements with academic and other institutions to have full
access to source code. Even earlier than that Microsoft was far more open
(interoperable with open hardware specifications, etc) than the more closed
vendors such as Apple.
Do you believe Microsoft shoul
isagreement is not remotely good manners.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable
media player from my cold d
" as being a relevant
goal of Open Source. If Open Source becomes something entirely different
than Free Software, and the rights/freedom public policy goals are lost,
then we'll splinter into those different camps and I believe that success
for anyone will go out the door.
--
Russe
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:47 PM Rick Moen wrote:
> Impugning motives openly in a public discussion tends to have a variety
> of poisonous effects,
Rick,
Using the loaded term "ethics" in the title of a group has the same
poisonous effects on conversations, essentially suggesting that anyone wh
On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 9:35 PM Russell Nelson wrote:
> 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 the DISTRIBUTION of software.
I recognise that this remind
as I'm very concerned with ethics around the creation and
use of software and other technology, but believe the stated methods are
counterproductive to their stated goals.
To use their language, I believe that "software freedom must always be in
service of human freedom",
he positive brand recognition
of "Open Source" to do something which predates and was deliberately
rejected by those who founded "Open Source".
I see an unfortunate trademark dispute in the future, as it is obviously
harmful for this proprietary (= author centric) software
olicy 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.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufa
On Sun, Mar 15, 2020 at 9:29 PM Coraline Ada Ehmke
wrote:
> So asking for voluntary donations or code contributions is verboten?
>
Software license agreements are conditions upon which permission is granted
to do activities which copyright or (unfortunately in some jurisdictions)
patent law requ
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
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 10:41 AM Tobie Langel wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 02:11 Russell Nelson wrote:
>
>> The fact that "ethical" software has no place at OSI? Well, it doesn't.
>> If it did, then she would have been elected.
>>
>
>
> With all due respect, I really feel like this is the wr
On Wed, Mar 18, 2020 at 12:24 PM Tobie Langel wrote:
> Yeah, I wasn't clear enough, sorry. I believe the OSI should seek to be
> broadly representative of the overall open source community and the broader
> population which is affected by open source.
>
Honest question, but how are you defining
(authors exerting control
over users through non-deterministic discrimination) is outside of what can
be called open source whether or not any specific license conflicted with
the OSD.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
"The governme
the new community takes over from the old then so-be-it, but it needs to
be recognised that they didn't add themselves to the community without
subtracting others (such as myself).
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
"The government, lobbied by legacy
nition at all of the possibility that the discriminatory tactics
chosen are in fact the problem.
It isn't my choice to treat some of the actors from the "ethical" source
movement as political opponents -- it is their choice. When those harmful
tactics are off the table, then they won&#x
On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 7:22 PM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> I think part of the issue here is that in the face of real human issues,
> this seems like a misuse of energy. Licenses manage the use of copyright
> rights. We fight genocide with laws,
then should other global citizens? Maybe "No
Tech for USA" until the country re-joins the ICJ and finally joins the
ICC. I happen to support international law, and believe that it is
problemmatic for a country operating outside of their own borders to not be
part of and respect the
urce software in particular".
In my mind the opposite is true, as those who want open source values
(especially non-discrimination) to be embraced by everyone (including their
political opponents, domestic or foreign) are to me the ones already
working toward reducing the negative impacts of techn
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:39 PM Hillel Coren wrote:
> It's easy to assume that by deprecating attribution based licenses
> developers will either choose a different OSI approved license or change
> their software from being labeled 'OSS' to 'Source-available software'. I'd
> argue in practice man
k the
> best next step is to work towards an AAL 2.0 which will enable more shared
> code AND better licenses.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 30, 2020 at 6:24 PM Russell McOrmond <
> russellmcorm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:39 PM Hillel Coren
On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:33 PM Hillel Coren wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I saw this comment "[the license] does not appear to be used for any
> currently available/working software", that simply isn't true. I'm one of
> the co-founders of Invoice Ninja, we use this license and think it's a
> great
eneral Public License and “DRM”
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4977
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights
as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict/
&qu
On Fri, May 24, 2019 at 9:41 PM Bruce Perens via License-discuss <
license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> OSI is increasingly being pressured to adopt licenses with *a common
> anti-user theme. *As an individual, I believe it's important to push back
> against such licenses, and that they
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 1:45 PM Pamela Chestek <
pamela.ches...@opensource.org> wrote:
> I've seen a few people who have said, essentially, "it's a little rough
> and tumble, so what, deal with it." But we lose voices that way. Some
> people with very smart views don't like confrontation, or inter
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 4:52 PM Rick Moen wrote:
> IMO, this OSI mailing list is a natural place for people supportive of
> OSI's real-world objectives.
>
The OSI as an organisation is free to determine its own objectives.
Whether they are in-line with what other people consider to be the
real-w
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 7:34 AM Rick Moen wrote:
> And why obsess over (supposed) gaps of ideology when you actually want
> the exact same outcomes as the other guys? Aren't outcomes what matter?
>
I agree outcomes are what matters. This isn't a variation of the Open
Source vs Free Software d
On Tue, May 28, 2019 at 3:33 PM VanL wrote:
>
> As he described it, goverment-written code is all public domain.
> Unfortunately, the predominant effect of that public domain status for the
> code was that government contractors would take the code, make trivial
> modifications, and sell it back
complexity you suggested above comes into
play. This sounds like a motivation for US GOSS projects to actively
recruit non-US government employee contributions.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to prote
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 7:38 PM Pamela Chestek
wrote:
> The Berne Convention also says in Article 7(8) that "unless the
> legislation of that country otherwise provides, the term [of protection]
> shall not exceed the term fixed in the country of origin of the work."
> https://www.wipo.int/treati
On Wed, May 29, 2019 at 3:55 PM Tzeng, Nigel H.
wrote:
> Heh, and I decided to leave the lists right before the discussion became
> interesting.
>
Well, we will need to agree to disagree.
* The value we are discussing is attaching the Open Source brand to this
software. Without the OSI approv
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:44 PM Tzeng, Nigel H.
wrote:
> 3. My agenda is mostly limited to wishing that we have more GOSS.
>
It is interesting that the policy split within license-discuss is similar
to the split within goslingcommunity.org
There are those who are focused on the government
use/c
On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 10:52 PM Richard Fontana wrote:
> Also, frankly, hasn't it been the case in practice that the OSD is
> broad, vague and in some places oddly-worded enough that it can also
> be criticized as facilitating arbitrary decisionmaking?
The OSD is a great expression of the prob
m should be trying to turn
the GPL and AGPL into only being able to be the equivalent of LGPL, as the
clauses which differentiate the GPL and AGPL from the LGPL should not be
enforceable under any law in any country.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
recognise the legal theories behind the Affero license to be as
harmful to our movement as legal protection for technological measures
(DMCA anti-circumvention/etc).
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our
ng, especially in
the context of software freedom, is exactly the wrong place to be thinking
about those issues.
Just because you have a hammer, doesn't make everything a nail.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliame
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 5:37 PM Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> My personal opinion (coming from the BSD camp):
>
...
IMHO the AGPL is beyond acceptable already.
>
I'm from the GPL camp (preference for reciprocal licensing), and I also
believe the AGPL is beyond acceptable already.
ource principles.
I have been writing submissions to various Canadian government departments
and agencies trying to ensure that interfaces are not covered by exclusive
rights. For instance, my submission to the Competition Bureau in 2003
http://www.flora.ca/competition2003/
--
Russell McOrmond
your own discrimination against
person, groups, or fields of endeavour. Fundamentally I see all this fear
as leading to a desire to violate OSD#5 and/or OSD#6, and thus I believe we
should not recognise software under these terms as being FLOSS.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://
decades on), then I would be 100%
onside. Since we are talking about extending the exclusive rights of
software authors to and past interfaces, then I am strongly opposed.
--
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to prot
On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 5:36 PM VanL wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> You seem to be arguing about a point that no one is making.
>
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2019, 11:59 AM Russell McOrmond
> wrote:
>
>> If I am a user of landscaping services, and the company providing that
>> l
et it wrong. I believe Mr. Kuhn and those who he has convinced
to adopt this counterproductive legal theory have got it wrong.
My goal in participating in this discussion is to do my part to ensure we
all eventually get this critically important policy question right.
There are many pe
the ability to download copies of that data), I don't see what this has to
do with software licensing. This seems like a need for government
regulation, something that is already moving forward in many jurisdictions
(and our community should increase our involvement in that).
--
Russell McOrmo
On Fri, Jul 12, 2019, 14:38 John Cowan wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jul 12, 2019 at 2:11 PM Russell McOrmond <
> russellmcorm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What is a "public performance" other than an interaction with software
>> through some public interface?
>>
On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 8:36 PM John Cowan wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 13, 2019 at 10:03 AM Russell McOrmond <
> russellmcorm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I can't tell if you are agreeing or disagreeing that it is the same or
>>> similar (right to authorise "
81 matches
Mail list logo
