[beyond-licensing] quick review of scope, resources, and goals

Sun Apr 10 15:46:15 UTC 2016

Hmmm... well, yes and no.

An illustration: We could talk about how the "Eat Less and Exercise
Program" (ELEP) is so successful because it talks about the practical
results of losing weight, looking good, and feeling energetic, and
avoids talking about abstract health benefits. It is true that it's
easier to drive change with practical benefits, they hit more directly
on the motivations of the people who are changing.

But, just because you don't talk about the abstract health benefits of
ELEP, doesn't mean they aren't there. In fact, the abstract health
benefits are the direct cause of the practical benefits of losing
weight, looking good, and feeling energetic. And at some point, those
abstract health benefits are important in telling the difference between
ELEP and the less beneficial "Just Eat a Whole Lot Less", which might at
first seem like less work, but tends to only get you the "lose weight"
benefit (maybe), while leaving you looking sickly and lacking energy
from poor nutrition.

So, yes, open source does talk about the practical benefits of lower
cost, auditability, flexibility, accelerating innovation, etc. And those
practical benefits have absolutely helped drive a major shift in the
software industry. But, just because we talk about the practical
benefits doesn't mean the abstract benefits of software freedom aren't
there. In fact, software freedom is the direct cause of the practical
benefits of open source. And at some point, those abstract benefits of
software freedom are important in telling the difference between open
source and a license that only shares the source code but doesn't grant
the right to use, modify, and redistribute it. At first glance it might
seem "like open source", but the fauxpen source license only gives you a
fraction of the practical benefits of open source.

Open source and software freedom aren't two different things, they're
two ways of talking about the same thing.

There's more "yes" than just the power of talking about practical
benefits: one of the great contributions of the Debian Free Software
Guidelines (which are the Open Source Definition), was providing a set
of objective criteria to clearly define what is and isn't a free
software/open source license. Instead of wandering through a minefield
of subtle nuances, opinions, or leaving the decision up to a benevolent
dictator, the objective criteria make it possible for any human being to
reason about whether a license meets the criteria. It empowers a
community of individuals to reason about licenses, about freedom, about
practical benefits, and about the nature of their own community.

So, ultimately my hope is very similar to yours, for a crisp set of
objective criteria, empowering a new generation of conversations beyond
licensing. But, in the process, I also want to make sure we don't lose
sight of the central defining pillar of open source, which is software
freedom.

Allison

On 04/07/2016 12:27 AM, Stephen Walli wrote:
> As we think about how we might articulate a set of principles, I might
> suggest we pick a focus. What I mean by that may be best demonstrated
> with an example [from a recent blog post on open source memes]:
> 
> "Meme #10: Software freedom and open source licensing are different
> discussions.
> Arguing about software freedom versus open source software is like
> debating whether democracy is better than capitalism, or free speech is
> more important than free markets. They are each important discussions in
> their own rights, and people often have a natural affinity for one
> subject or the other, but they are not the same discussion. They are not
> end points on a continuum. The language of software freedom is defined
> by the rights of users. The language of open source software is defined
> by attributes of a license. These are different discussions."
> 
> I think the respective definitions are both very crisp and can be
> cleanly differentiated because they are clearly discussing things from a
> perspective (the user's or the license's) and then they can focus on a
> set of relevant attributes (rights for users, attributes of a license). 
> I think that quality of perspective makes each of those definitions
> powerful. 
> cheers, always  stephe
> 
> On Tue, Apr 5, 2016 at 4:08 AM, Leslie Hawthorn
> <lhawthorn at opensource.org <mailto:lhawthorn at opensource.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>     On 5 April 2016 at 00:06, Allison Randal <allison at opensource.org
>     <mailto:allison at opensource.org>> wrote:
> 
>         On 04/04/2016 03:08 PM, Allison Randal wrote:
>         > The difference between a mailing list and an "official" working group is
>         > a simple process where we explain to the OSI board what we want to do,
>         > and the board says "that makes sense". I've put together a first draft
>         > using the standard template, could you all take a look and see whether
>         > I've captured the idea behind the group? Feel free to suggest any
>         > changes or make them directly to the wiki page:
>         >
>         > https://wiki.opensource.org/bin/Projects/Beyond+Licensing+Working+Group+Proposal
> 
> 
>     Proposal LGTM.
> 
>     Thank you for volunteering to chair the Working Group, Deb! 
> 
> 
>         A note: I have a hope that the final result will be a set of
>         principles
>         that the FSF could also approve, with a quick substitution of "free
>         software" for "open source". That might sound radical, until you
>         recall
>         that the Open Source Definition is just a few quick
>         substitutions on the
>         Debian Free Software Guidelines.
> 
>         I don't know that it belongs as a goal in the charter for the
>         working
>         group, since it would be the FSF's choice whether they want it
>         at all.
>         But, it does influence the process, and especially makes me glad
>         that we
>         have participants who self-identify as "free software" as well as
>         participants who self-identify as "open source".
> 
>         I'd aim for a third version that substitutes "software freedom", but
>         grammatically I think we're far less likely to succeed at a 1:1
>         replacement with that phrase.
> 
> 
>     I would hope this third version would be possible with some clever
>     editing and I volunteer to assist with that effort when the time is
>     right.
> 
>     Cheers,
>     LH
> 
>     ----
>     Leslie Hawthorn
>     Board Member
>     Open Source Initiative
>     http://opensource.org
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     beyond-licensing mailing list
>     beyond-licensing at opensource.org <mailto:beyond-licensing at opensource.org>
>     https://lists.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/beyond-licensing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Stephen R. Walli
> mailto:   stephen.walli at gmail.com <mailto:stephen.walli at gmail.com>
> mobile:   +1 425 785 6102 
> blogs:    http://stephesblog.blogs.com  (Once More unto the Breach)
>           https://opensource.com/user_articles/16271
> <http://www.networkworld.com/community/walli> (opensource.com
> <http://opensource.com>)
> Flickr:   http://www.flickr.com/photos/stephenrwalli/
> LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/stephenrwalli
> Twitter:  @stephenrwalli