[License-discuss] Ethical open source licensing - Dual Licensing for Justice

[Russell Nelson]

On 3/6/20 4:47 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote:
>> On Mar 6, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Russell Nelson <nelson at crynwr.com> wrote:
>>
>> I do NOT like the idea of ethical open source. It completely turns the idea of "forking without permission" into "you can only run this software if I think you are a good person.”
>
> I see statements like this being thrown around so often, and I’m really sick of it being repeated with exactly ZERO backing evidence.

Well, then, let's look at the terms of the ESD (even though it's 
off-topic for license-discuss). It controls not licenses, but the 
software itself. This matters very much. Once we say that a license is 
OSD-compliant, anybody can distribute software under that license and 
say that it's open source. If they don't comply with the terms of the 
license, the copyright holder has grounds for a copyright infringement suit.

The ESD applies to software, not to licenses. If somebody uses 
ESD-licensed software, they're NOT free and clear. They could get into 
legal or social trouble down the road.

For example, ESD#1 implies that software which is inheritive cannot be 
combined with software that is not. So the GPL is out, completely. For 
example, ESD#2 could be infringed by a developer who rejects a patch 
("welcoming of public contributions"). Their decision may be grounds to 
remove ESD compliance from their software depending on someone's 
opinion, including some third party. ESD#3 says that the code of conduct 
must be consistently and fairly enforced. Who decides this? You? Me? The 
Ethical Source Movement board of directors? Or some other committee? ESD 
#4 could be infringed by a piece of software which fails to include 
sufficient prohibitions. ESD #5 seriously? You're permitting proprietary 
software. Or, if you aren't, then it's just virtue signalling, 
attempting to attract developers who want to beg for money. ESD #6 
doesn't define what is a "widely interoperable open format". I can open 
Microsoft Word files using Open Office. Does means it complies with ESD 
#6? Does Word's XML file format make it comply? You can't argue that XML 
is NOT a "widely interoperable open format".

The whole thing reeks of arbitrary judgements.

I hope this is adequate backing evidence.