[License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas
Joshua R. Simmons
josh.simmons at opensource.org
Thu Feb 27 23:51:56 UTC 2020
I just want to underscore that this is, indeed, meant to be a place where
we can discuss licenses ;-)
I quite value the thought experiments that have been brought to the list
recently, as they were powerful fodder for refining and clarifying our
understanding of the OSD and open source.
We ought not chase people away, as if we do, we will be lesser for it.
Josh Simmons, VP at Open Source Initiative (Tax ID 91-2037395)
@joshsimmons <http://twitter.com/joshsimmons> | josh at opensource.org |
| bluesomewhere on Freenode
ad astra per aspera 🚀
On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 3:20 PM andrew.dema <andrew.dema at gmail.com> wrote:
> L-D stands for license discussion. Part of discussion is communication and
> the sharing of ideas. If someone cannot ask if an idea works in the OSD(in
> this case is there the capability of a license to discriminate and if so
> under what circumstances eg. GPL and to what eg. People,other software
> works etc.), in essence to learn through not only communication but
> questioning and challenging ideas; then there is no discussion. Can we all
> just take a step back and consider why the list exists? If discussion
> cannot take place even the most contrary discussion to open source how do
> we qualify new concepts like CAL AGPL or others and know when to draw the
> line/silence the discussion. I'd say I trust no one to make that kind of a
> call. There is no safe space in the battleground of ideology and like it or
> not that's where this topic has been dragged.
> -------- Original message --------
> From: Russell McOrmond <russellmcormond at gmail.com>
> Date: 2020-02-27 5:28 p.m. (GMT-05:00)
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas
> On Thu, Feb 27, 2020 at 1:01 PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
>> To paraphrase the above: "It's only deplatforming if it's me or my
>> friends. If it's someone I don't agree with, they're just whining."
> Decades ago my actual friends bought me a T-Shirt
> It said "Everybody Loves Eric S. Raymond (except me)", given there were
> many political ideas (including Geeks with Guns) that ESR held that I
> disagreed with.
> But that is in fact the point of the non-discrimination core of Open
> Source, which is that people who otherwise strongly disagree with each
> other can work together on software projects. It was only threats to Open
> Source that we accepted discrimination against, making the political text
> which the GPL contains fundamentally different than any political topic not
> centered on software.
> As soon as you introduce more reasons to discriminate, Open Source ceased
> to exist because there is no longer a mechanism for people to work together
> if they bring all their personal politics into software projects.
> I consider expansion of patent, copyright and related rights that threaten
> Open Source to be unethical. That would put on my PNG list companies like
> Apple and IBM, and the drafters of the AGPL (performance of software,
> etc). I would not put companies like Google or Amazon on my list as I
> don't see what they do as harmful, but if I were designing my own PNG
> license it would explicitly be incompatable with PNG licenses which
> exclude cloud native companies since I consider that descrimination to be
> I believe the logical outcome of the PNG concept should be obvious.
>> Free speech is not your exclusive right, Russell. Nor ESRs, no matter
>> how much you seem to think so. If you want a "safe space" where only
>> people you agree with can speak, it's cheap and easy to create your own
>> mailing list, and I wish you the joy of it.
> I think you have this backwards. The mailing list to discuss ideas
> compatable with the OSD are the lists hosted by opensource.org. This
> community will (most often politely) inform people when their ideas are
> incompatable with one of the fundamental tennants of Open Source. If
> people insist on continuing to disrespect the community by trying to
> unethically get around the fundamental tennants of Open Source, then the
> pushback will become harder and harsher. People can't disrespect a
> community, and then get upset when harsh words are eventually used to
> defend the community.
> If you want to discuss concepts which are incompatable with the
> fundamental tennants of Open Source, and not be critiqued for your
> unwillingness to accept these fundamental tennants, then you are free to
> create your own mailing lists.
> Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>
> "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
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-discuss