[License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice
gyehuda at verizonmedia.com
Wed Feb 26 17:17:05 UTC 2020
We operate in the realm of words, and words matter, words help clarify.
Analogy: Food labels can indicate a product to be Organic, Free Trade,
Gluten-free, Kosher, Poisonous, etc. Each of these labels indicate
something different. No one insists that in order to be considered Free
Trade that a product must also be Organic. That erodes meaning and confuses
the marketplace. A product might be traded fairly and not get the
certification. A product might be gluten-free and poisonous. Don't consume
that product, even if you are gluten intolerant. It's not good for you.
Licenses that have been approved by the OSI as having complied with OSD are
Open Source. We all get that. Separately from OSI a group of people created
a separate concept called Ethical Source and they created a separate
definition https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/ which is also separate
from the OSD. Thankfully they make it very clear that no one should confuse
the ESD with the OSD. They obviously mean different things.
Personally I'm confused about the details of the ESD, but that's OK, if I
wanted to, I'd join the working group and learn more about it. I would not
conflate that work with OSI. In fact, reading the ESD I see it to conflict
with OSI much the way you could not have organic grass-fed pork that was
My recommendation: if ESD is interesting to you, work on it. If OSD is
interesting, work on it. If someone can create a license that complies with
both, more power to you. But unless one of those definitions changes, I
don't think that's going to happen. IMO these should be treated as separate
endeavors with separate goals.
Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement
>From the Open Source Program Office
<https://developer.yahoo.com/opensource/docs/> at Yahoo --> Oath - ->
My work calendar is open for colleagues to see. yo/open-calendars
On Wed, Feb 26, 2020 at 11:01 AM Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> wrote:
> Pamela Chestek dixit:
> >would be an enforceable license. Why are you trying to fit it under the
> Au contraire, his dual licence isn’t enforceable, unless it
> allows me to exercise my right (and possibly even duty!) under
> the LGPL to give a copy to Amazon under LGPL, which they then
> can use under LGPL.
> (This includes stripping any additional restrictions.)
> >umbrella of "open source" too?
> Yes, please kindly do stop abusing the ressources of this
> mailing list for your clearly nōn-free ideas. Thanks.
> I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
> when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy
> If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
> existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss