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

[Tobie Langel]

On Sat, Mar 21, 2020 at 00:18 McCoy Smith <mccoy at lexpan.law> wrote:

> *From:* Tobie Langel <tobie at unlockopen.com>
> *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2020 3:43 PM
> *To:* license-discuss at lists.opensource.org; mccoy at lexpan.law
> *Subject:* Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower
> authors outside license agreements?
>
> Is the OSD a legal document rooted in American law, though? The OSD uses
> “genetic research” or “being used in a business” as examples of fields of
> endeavor. The annotated version is even more explicit about section 6’s
> role.
>
> I’d agree that the annotation is not helpful, given all that it really
> talks about (or talks about as being “major”) is commercial use.  But by
> that logic, one could put a restriction against any number of
> non-commercial uses.   For example: “this software may not be used to
> promote socialism.”  Does that satisfy the OSD?
>
No that wouldn’t because it would prevent marketers from doing their job in
violation of section 6.

> Regardless of how useless such a license would be, wouldn’t a simple MIT
> license with the additional clause “Must not be use to commit genocide”
> actually satisfy all OSD criteria? Note I’m absolutely not claiming it
> would be certified by the OS. It also violates freedom 0, but the four
> freedoms aren’t part of the OSD
>
>
>
> Ah, but there are some  of us who have argued they are…
>
Hence my point that the OSD needs to be clarified.

>
>
> Committing genocide is clearly not a field of endeavor as defined by
> section 6 of the OSD, and people who commit genocide aren’t a protected
> class that would warrant protection of section 5 (and even if that argument
> was made, people who commit genocide could still use the software, just not
> to commit genocide).
>
>
>
> I’m not sure how you get to those two conclusions.  There are no
> “protected classes” and “unprotected classes” in the OSD.  They apply to
> everyone equally.
>
I’d argue that’s debatable, but regardless my point in parentheses still
holds.

> As to whether “genocide” is a field of endeavor, I think many folks have
> said you can use free or open source software for anything, even things
> that a large majority of people would find objectionable if not horrifying:
>
> “We've long believed that it should be possible to use software for any
> purpose; we said the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License was
> non-free because it limited this freedom. GPLv3 has no such limits. You can
> use GPLed software to implement DRM, guide nuclear missiles, or run your
> own organized crime syndicate—just as you can use it to administer a court,
> run an animal shelter, or organize your community.”
>
> https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-10-18-gplv3-fud
>
I‘m absolutely aware of this. But that’s not what the OSD says.

> <https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-10-18-gplv3-fud>
>
> So I think the plain meaning, and the conventional understanding, of OSD 5
> & 6 is “you cannot put any restriction against any user, or use, of the
> software, in an open source license”
>
Remember that the argument I’m making here is precisely that if the OSI’s
point of view matches the one you’re articulating here, the OSD needs
tightening. The fact that you had to reference the four freedoms and and
fsf blog post to argue your point really made mine. ;)

—tobie

>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200321/97d943b1/attachment.html>