[License-discuss] For Public Comment: The Libre Source License

[Russell McOrmond]

On Wed, Aug 21, 2019 at 11:35 PM Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:

> I appreciate your discussion of preferred policies, but that has nothing
> to do with license-discuss at .
>


I'll clarify why I disagree, since the conversion has gone off in some
interesting directions.


a) Drawing a line between the interests of software proprietors vs software
users is in fact the purpose of the OSD and license-discuss, so discussions
towards clarifying that line have everything to do with this list.  I say
software proprietors very deliberately, as it is most often large
transnational corporations who hold these rights, and thus it is not
automatically in the interests of software authors when proprietor rights
are embraced in "open source" licenses.

b) The reason why it is important to have lawyers like yourself involved in
this forum and the OSI in general is because these licenses might be
interpreted by courts (and in more than one country), and that will set
precedent.  Guesses about license interpretation by courts, and unintended
consequences from that interpretation of licenses, is entirely on-topic for
this forum.


Russell suggested:
>
> a) Work to amend the law in their jurisdiction such that private uses are
> a limitation or exception to copyright
>
> b) Avoid using proprietary software licensed to regulate private uses
>
> c) Advocate for the OSI and FSF to reject licenses which regulate private
> uses to avoid confusion with those which do not.
>
> d) if (c) fails, work with others to create a fork of the FSF 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.
>
>
>
> Write a law review article somewhere and propose what you desire. Or
> create a fork of FSF or OSI for your purposes. But please don't change our
> law or our licenses without permission.
>

Obviously I'm not politically influential enough to change any law or
license alone, with or without anyone's permission.

What I will continue to do is try to create discussions within the FSF and
OSI about where they draw the line between the interests of software
proprietors and software users, and to encourage that to guide what
licenses they then give their stamp of approval to.  In this forum it isn't
about changing anything other than peoples minds about what these
organisations should permit.


On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 1:34 AM Roger Fujii <rmf at lookhere.com> wrote:

> Now I'm confused.    Are you saying there is no "fair use" when the target
> is software?   While one can weaken"fair use" via the license, is this a
> good idea for OSI to support this?
>


I also find this conversation confusing.

I've always considered private modification of works to be part of research
and private study (freedom 1, using language from the Canadian copyright
act), and if not clearly covered by "fair use" or "fair dealing" (Canada is
under a less liberal regime than the US) then at least something that
should be protected by the FSF and OSI as part of their license approval
process.

There has been a general belief expressed in the sector (promoted by Apple,
Microsoft, IBM and others over the decades) that the limitations and
exceptions to copyright shouldn't apply as much to software as to other
creative works.  While I expect that from these large proprietary software
vendors, I am always surprised when I hear the same arguments being made by
people who self-identify as part of the Free Software and/or Open Source
software sector.   It has been interesting to watch Microsoft and IBM move
towards being less proprietor focused, and the FSF and OSI move more
towards being proprietor focused -- I wonder if they will ever cross
paths....



The move of the FSF and OSI to approve/promote licenses which demand
disclosure of private modifications (or disclosure of modifications to
anyone who didn't otherwise receive the software in any other form), or
that trigger on mere use of interfaces (network or otherwise) shouldn't be
taken lightly.  This is a radical departure from what the movement was
about back in the 1980/1990's.


If this type of thinking existed in the past, especially as it relates to
interfaces, it would have made things like LibreOffice, Samba, and other
critical 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 us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights
as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict/

"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable
media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190823/c04da8b6/attachment.html>