[License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

[Jasper Horn]

ESD Fragment for context:
> The software project’s maintainers may, at their discretion, request
remuneration in the form of code contributions, financial consideration, or
other forms of voluntary support

McCoy Smith:
> “Voluntary” modifies “support” not “remuneration” or “financial
consideration”

Consider the phrase "cola, guabo, mountain dew, or other fizzy drinks".
Now, you do not know what "guabo" is (because I just made it up), but you
do know it must be a fizzy drink. The "other" signifies that the following
classifier is the one that the previous items fall under.

(This is not an opinion about the ESD, but a statement about language.)

Sincerely,

Jasper

On Mon, Mar 16, 2020 at 3:07 AM McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

> *From:* License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Coraline Ada Ehmke
> *Sent:* Sunday, March 15, 2020 5:45 PM
> *To:* license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower
> authors outside license agreements?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 15, 2020, at 7:26 PM, Brendan Hickey <brendan.m.hickey at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> "It encourages fair compensation. The software project’s maintainers may,
> at their discretion, request remuneration in the form of code
> contributions, financial consideration, or other forms of voluntary support
> from organizations that derive commercial value from the software.”
>
>
>
> So asking for voluntary donations or code contributions is verboten? What
> about all those projects signed up with Tidelift and OpenCollective, are
> they not open source anymore?
>
>
>
> “Voluntary” modifies “support” not “remuneration” or “financial
> consideration”
>
>
>
> And “shall not” in OSD 1 is the opposite of “may” in ESD 7.
>
>
>
> Or to simply matters, a license that says “Exercise of the license rights
> is conditioned upon You paying me fair compensation” would satisfy ESD 7
> but violate both OSD 1 and the FSD 2 & 3 (“Freedom to distribute
> (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with
> or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution,
> to anyone anywhere
> <https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html#exportcontrol>. Being free
> to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask
> or **pay for permission to do so.**”)
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200316/b4b6fa04/attachment-0001.html>