[License-discuss] Thoughts on the subject of ethical licenses

[Gil Yehuda]

Josh, Rick,
you both make very good points. I'll reinforce: I do not know other
people's motivations. My observations (also informed by participating on
the ethical source working group channels) is that there is a distance in
terms of shared objectives. That suggests faith in different outcomes, but
not bad faith. I don't think there's bad faith here (I'm sorry if anyone
thought I suggested that), but I am disappointed in the way in which the
conversation is going (both on this list and on their discussions). I
suggested to members of the Ethical Source working group ways in which they
could engage that would bring the conversation goals closer. I shared a
number of examples of messages that come across in ways that at least I
thought were unnecessarily provocative and explored if there was interest
in reconsidering the approach that signaled a shared goal and
understanding.

My current feeling is disappointment in the conversation and I'm less
enthusiastic about seeing this play out. Largely because I think they are
looking to achieve a different goal. They may be relieved that I'll ask
fewer questions and make fewer suggestions, too.

You are right, OSD is not immutable. But this is the license-discuss list,
not the OSD-discuss list, nor the ESD-discuss list. Maybe that's too fine a
point, and I'm sure (and hope) other people on this list are less
interested in discussing if I was sufficiently articulate and measured in
my words. Sorry to distract from the conversation.

Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement



On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 6:05 PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:

> On 3/11/20 2:33 PM, Gil Yehuda via License-discuss wrote:
> > This topic is very important and we're all passionate about it. Written
> > text in email groups is notoriously bad for conveying nuance. I was
> > hoping to come across more balanced than perhaps I did. My essential
> > message is that as a discussion list we're most effective toward our
> > goals when we focus on improving /open source/ licensing.
>
> Sure, but what "improving" means has to be continually defined, and tested.
>
> Coraline (and others) believe that ethical clauses are a license
> improvement.  I happen to not agree, but that doesn't mean they're
> arguing in bad faith, or even necessarily wrong.  If you don't think
> Coraline sincerely believes in her mission to improve open source, you
> haven't met her.
>
> And ... we just this month decided that "rights to user data" *was*
> potentially an improvement in open source licensing.  Several people
> still disagree that this is an improvement (some quite vocally), and
> time will tell who is right, but if we couldn't have a discussion that
> tests the limits of what is open source, then we couldn't make progress.
>
> License-discuss is where we discuss (among other things) what it means
> to be Open Source, up to, and including, revisions of the OSD (OSD 8/9,
> I have my eyes on you).  If you want a list where the OSD text is
> immutable, then that's license-review.
>
> --
> Josh Berkus
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200311/850dbafe/attachment-0001.html>