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

[Nigel T]

On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 1:37 PM Tobie Langel <tobie at unlockopen.com> wrote:

>
> On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 7:43 PM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss <
> license-discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
>
> Is this a flaw? I'm not sure there's a better alternative. OSD is a*
>> floor for licenses*, not a description of the movement.
>>
>
> I couldn't agree more. You've noted that I'm absolutely not suggesting
> (all) licenses should have these ideals built-in. *The crux of the
> problem is that they no longer meet the OSD when they do.* Now, as I
> mentioned earlier, I'm well aware that there might be limitations that
> would prevent such licenses from passing broad legal scrutiny, and I agree
> that this would be a valid reason not to certify them. But were there
> hypothetically no such limitations (which I think is precisely the
> hypothesis a working group on this topic should test), preventing such
> limitations at the OSD level wouldn't make sense.
>

If you cannot meet the *minimum* requirements (aka which you agree is the
"floor") then you are not an open source license are you?

Tack on whatever else you like that is compliant and you are still Open
Source.  The OSD is written so that licenses must be non-discriminatory.
ELOS requires you to be discriminatory.


> Sorry. I should have been more clear. By "fairly recently" I meant a
> couple of years or so. I'm quite familiar with the term and its
> connotation. I absolutely don't think that's what folks in the broad open
> source community have in mind when they think of their practice.
>

Perhaps there should be more than simple assertion that your position is
more in line with the "broad open source community" than the OSI's position.


> So instead of "let's fight Open Source" or no, now "let's change Open
>> Source" let me suggest "let's figure out where we best fit in the
>> collection of open-culture movements."  (which frankly includes more than
>> open source).
>>
>
> That goes back to the tension I was describing earlier. You basically have
> two parties claiming that what they do is open source, one of which doesn't
> agree that what the other is doing is open source, neither having a formal
> claim to the term. Hairy!
>

If you can get the broad open source community to agree that what you are
doing is open source (who you have said they already do), good for you and
there is no need to attempt to change the OSD is there?  There may not be a
legal claim but the OSI does have a formal claim on the term within the
community having been the steward for it since the beginning.  (You guys
should have at least trademarked the "open" badge that the ESD has now
taken).

So, not hairy at all...you have your own wonderful community, fully
supported by the broader open source community to define what is or isn't
open source in the future.  Complete with your own "open" badge and
branding!   Enjoy!

Leave the poor OSI curmudgeons with their ever shrinking pool of influence
and derelict, unethical, "nominally open source" projects to their own
devices.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200320/e4eae49e/attachment.html>