[License-discuss] Ethical + Support license addition for Apache

[Gil Yehuda]

To Ofer's new suggestion making registration a condition: no. That does not
work, either by the letter or, or the spirit of, open source.

I'd *love* to know who uses our code. If we run a meetup for an open source
project we run, we ask people on our message boards to speak (and they tell
us they use our code and want to share how and ideas they have to improve
it). But it's not a condition of use. We want to allow a person to
experiment, test, explore, and if they see fit, reject using our code
without forcing them to tell us. We encourage them to tell us about their
use of our code, by asking. But it's up to them to do so.

So much like the "please do good things" is a great idea to put in a
readme, "please let us know if you use this code" is also a great message
to put in a readme or contributing file. You can give them a laptop sticker
in return. But please don't put it in a legally binding license agreement
since I don't want to be obligated to tell you what I do.

Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement

>From the Open Source Program Office
<https://developer.yahoo.com/opensource/docs/> at Yahoo --> Oath - ->
Verizon Media


On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:43 AM Russell McOrmond <russellmcormond at gmail.com>
wrote:

> It
> On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 6:46 AM Johnny A. Solbu <johnny at solbu.net> 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.
>>
>> I imagine most of the partitipants on this list would refuse to use
>> software that require them to register in order to use it.
>>
>
>
> The FSF rejected the RPL
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#RPL : "2. It requires
> notification of the original developer for publication of a modified
> version. 3. It requires publication of any modified version that an
> organization uses, even privately."
>
> In Ofer's license proposal this is registration of mere usage, not
> registration of publication (public disclosure) of modified versions, so is
> even less likely to be accepted by the FSF.
>
>
> I'm wondering if anyone can help explain to me what they see as the
> difference between the forced public disclosure of private modifications of
> software, and registration of mere usage, private modification, or public
> discloseof software? All of these involve the forced disclose of private
> activities.
>
> While I believe that there would be consensus on registration making
> software non-FLOSS, there appears to be a growing divide on forced public
> disclosure (and not strictly between the FSF and OSI, given the FSF has
> granted approval to licenses which cross the line of forced public
> disclosure of private activities).
>
> I agree that the outcome may seem different for those focused on source
> code disclosure, but the argument seems similar.  In policy discussions
> (and licenses are part of a policy discussion, whether people recognise it
> or not) a bad argument can set precedent that can be used for different
> (possibly opposing) outcomes. We need to be careful about unintended
> consequences and not narrowly on the disclosed intent.
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190809/8713df70/attachment-0001.html>