delite me from your mailing list

Wed Jan 24 21:30:07 UTC 2007

Ben Tilly schrieb:
> On 1/21/07, Rick Moen <rick at linuxmafia.com> wrote:
>> Quoting Ben Tilly (btilly at gmail.com):
>>
>> [OSD#6:]
>>
>> > I am uncomfortable in attempting to read people's minds.  Let me go
>> > re-read the words instead.
>>
>> Make sure you read the posted rationale, too.  Oh wait, you didn't!
>> So, it would probably, in that event, be futile to suggest you
>> reacquaint yourself with the history of what OSD#6 was intended to head
>> off.  Your loss.
>
> I hope this comment wasn't meant to be a demonstration of your psychic
> abilities.  Because if it was, it failed horribly.  And failed in such
> a way that I am even more loathe to trust your mindreading.
>
> Which is to say, I read the posted rationale as well.  I read it, and
> found that it fits with my interpretation.  There are plenty of people
> who have tried to have licenses that say things like, "This code is
> free for non-commercial use."  In fact we had someone coming to this
> list this month looking for a license like that.  But that kind of
> restriction is exactly what what OSD #6 provides.
>
> By contrast take SocialText's license (not the one they submitted, the
> one that they use).  I'd have no objection using that for an internal
> wiki.  (Which is frankly what most businesses would use one for.)
> Many businesses would have no problem in having that logo on a site
> used for a community discussion board.  So clearly there is no problem
> in using that commercially.  Obviously if I was a competitor to
> SocialText selling a derivative of their code, I wouldn't like having
> to advertise SocialText everywhere.  But I've not been forbidden.
>
>> > My understanding of those words, and the elucidating examples, both
>> > tell me that you can't tell people they _can't_ use the software.
>>
>> So, a clause saying Andrew C. Oliver's example
>> (Http://blog.buni.org/blog/acoliver/opensource/2006/12/12/The-Buni-Special-Attribution-License-Proposal 
>>
>> ) of an "Exhibit B" clause requiring works to include a big, red
>> dialogue in front of every screen saying "Ripped off from Buni.org
>> [logo] without permission" would not strike you as contravening OSD#6?
>> Andrew goes on:  "We'd of course allow folks who bought a special
>> SuperGoodVersion license to remove our dialog."
>
> It is absurd to have both a license granting permission and forcing
> people to claim they don't have permission.  I would hope that
> somewhere in our legal system there is some formalized kind of appeal
> to common sense that would forbid that. Or perhaps not - the law is
> not the most sensible thing in creation.
>
> Still to my eyes the biggest OSD #6 issue with that example is the
> fact that a large dialog will not fit on a mobile device, thereby
> rendering the code truly unusable by an entire swath of businesses.
> In fact, thinking about it, I'd agree that there is an OSD #6
> violation on the grounds that the license shuts out companies
> delivering content to mobile devices.  That is, of course, more
> obviously an OSD #10 violation.  But in my books it is an OSD #6 one
> as well.
>
> But saying, "There are companies that wouldn't like this term"
> doesn't, to me, equate with forbidding use of this software in any
> particular field of endeavour.
>
>> OK, it's good to know where you're coming from.  The rest of us can
>> attempt to apply a more nuanced understanding that takes into account
>> what OSD#6 was _intended_ to prevent, and acknowledges the declared
>> specific intention (see: eyebrow-raising MuleSource quotation) of
>> Exhibit B licences to make commercial reuse completely infeasible.
>
> I'm not going to take your word on the intentions behind this clause.
> After all we recently had a demonstration with OSD #10 that your
> understanding of the intentions of the clause were completely
> mistaken.  And your unfair characterizations of me have confirmed that
> your psychic abilities are lacking.
>
> I can only judge intentions by words and actions.  The words that I
> see fit with my understanding.  Previous action in the form of
> approving the AAL also fits well with my understanding.  And that
> understanding is that it is OK under OSD #6 to have terms that you
> know darned well some people won't like.  They can't actually stop
> someone from making any use they want of your code.  But they are
> allowed to make it unpalatable.
>
> Which leaves open a question.  You see, your opinion and mine of the
> intent of OSD #6 are fundamentally irrelevant.  What matters is the
> board's opinion of the intent when they proceed to vote on the issue.
>
>> > >They have interfered with _usage_ in a way that creates two 
>> classes of
>> > >users, which is precisely what OSD #6 aims to delimit as outside the
>> > >definition of open source.
>> >
>> > Au contraire.  The license creates one and only one class of users.
>>
>> I'm not even going to attempt to debate that issue further, as you've
>> clearly gone transrational on this matter.
>
> Rather than address the point, insult the speaker.
>
> I'd appreciate it if you'd stop that, but I'm not sure you can.  It
> seems to be fundamental for you.
>
> Still if you claim that the license creates two classes of users, it
> should be possible for you to identify two (possibly hypothetical)
> users and explain how they differ.  If you are unable to do so, then
> the license only creates one class of users.
>
>> > Agreed.  Let the market decide.
>>
>> Again, hell no, bro'.  The OSI Board does.
>
> I thought it was clear in the original context that I meant, "Let the
> market decide which businesses treat their customers well."  Let me go
> back and see.
>
> Oh right.  The full quote was, "Agreed.  Let the market decide.  (And
> the freedoms of open source software make it easier to challenge a bad
> company.)"
>
> How you misinterpreted that to think that I was talking about what
> licenses are open source I do not know.  But the fact that you did
> weakens my confidence in your ability to come up with reasonable
> interpretations of intent from the words used.
>
>> If you simply don't like that, feel free to invent your own licensing
>> concept and certification process.
>
> You are arguing against a misinterpretation of yours.  I've never
> challenged the right of the OSI to choose which licenses do and do not
> fit with the open source definition.
>
> Cheers,
> BEn
>

___________________________________________________________ 
Der frühe Vogel fängt den Wurm. Hier gelangen Sie zum neuen Yahoo! Mail: http://mail.yahoo.de