[License-discuss] OSI definition

Mon Feb 1 14:07:39 UTC 2021

As I said, it's time to shut this conversation down. No one's mind is 
going to be changed no matter how logical or illogical the arguments.

Pam

Pamela Chestek
Chair, License Committee
Open Source Initiative

On 2/1/2021 5:17 AM, Antoine Thomas via License-discuss wrote:
> I would like to illustrate with a simplified example.
>
> Let's say I am building special cars for a niche market in small 
> quantities (e.g. for people with disabilities). I am an individual, 
> and I work with other individuals, we are not incorporated (that would 
> be foolish because of the risk, but, anyway). We are using open source 
> software, and free software, or any technology available as open 
> source (not just software), for car controls (engine, security, ...) 
> and entertainment. People buy the cars and drive them, thanks to our 
> special technology. The fact is that they are users of the software, 
> distributed with the car. Anyone, including a company or a state, can 
> buy and use the car. And that matters: in this very example, it would 
> mean that a group of people gathered in a not for profit organisation 
> could own cars and provide them to people in need (renting, time 
> sharing, ...).
>
> Then, let say I add some software released with a leftcopy license 
> that includes restrictions on corporations and other organisations. 
> The firmwares is updated on all cars to the benefits of all users. If 
> my understanding is good, it would mean that organisations can't 
> anymore own and use the cars, and their employees or beneficiaries 
> will not be able to drive them anymore. Only individuals owners can 
> still own and drive their cars.
>
> Then, let's go to the next step. Imagine an individual stealing one of 
> the cars, and then use it to rob a bank. How are restrictions in a 
> "don't do evil" license managing that bad behavior? Is it allowed 
> anyway, because this is done by an individual, or will you add a 
> clause against it? And, does the vilain really care about it anyway? 
> Who would you sew because the terms of the license were not respected? 
> The vilain? The car owner? Or, eventually, me, the car manufacturer, 
> as the distributor of the software, because I was not able to ensure 
> that the license will be respected?
>
> That's also a question about third party providers:
> - To own and drive a car you must pay an insurance company, but is 
> this allowed by the license?
> - You must go to the mechanic (most often, a company) from time to 
> time, and they will at least drive the car in their workshop, or test 
> it on roads, so they will have to use the software even if it's not 
> allowed to them.
>
> And what is happening if me and my associates want to incorporate?
>
> This is actually not viable to make a difference between individuals 
> and organisations, or discrimination in genaral between different kind 
> of users: because this is not taking in account the real life. And 
> it's not just about cars... The risk to use software with this kind of 
> restriction is then too high for any one taking care about legal 
> compliance, including individuals. And that's also the purpose of FSF 
> and OSI approved licenses: to allow any kind of user to use 
> the technology. When you think about it, RMS was not an individual 
> when he had his printer firmware issue, he was working for MIT.
>
> My point is that it's not just about who can use the technology to 
> build or develop something. It's also about the very end users, and 
> all kinds of users.
>
> (please, do not hesitate to correct me if I am misunderstanding 
> something of if this example is not appropriate)
>
> Antoine
>
> PrestaShop 
> <https://www.prestashop.com/?utm_source=signature&utm_medium=e-mail&utm_campaign=emails-signatures> 
> 	
>
> Antoine Thomas aka ttoine
>
> Open Source Evangelist
>
> t: +33 (0)6 63 13 79 06
>
> antoine.thomas at prestashop.com <mailto:antoine.thomas at prestashop.com>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 1 Feb 2021 at 05:01, Johnny A. Solbu <johnny at solbu.net 
> <mailto:johnny at solbu.net>> wrote:
>
>     On Tuesday 26 January 2021 17:07, Mat K. Witts wrote:
>     > > Yes, on its own. It's a group.
>     >
>     > Show me the group then. What/who does it contain that is not
>     either an
>     > officer, shareholder, subsidiary company, customer, client or
>     > representative officer. When you strike out a company, nobody
>     ceases to
>     > exist, it's just the legal entity. That ought to tell you all
>     you need
>     > to know about what a corporation is.
>     >
>     > > You intend to discriminate
>     >
>     > Not against any human beings, which is what that section must
>     surely be
>     > all about. There is ZERO discrimination against anyone.
>
>     The various FSF and OSI licenses deliberately avoid separating
>     corporations/companies from actuall people.
>     Corporations/Companies are treated as any other user and have all
>     the same freedoms and restrictions as a real human being has.
>
>
>     > > We don't WANT to discriminate, even against "bad" people.
>     >
>     > ...and how's that working out?
>
>     You are missing the point.
>
>     If any govermnent or company manages to completely kill off the
>     entire human race by using Free Software, they are free to do so
>     as far as the various Free software licence texts is concerned.
>
>     There is no way any Free and Open Source licence terms can be used
>     to even attempt to stop or restrict a government or any company
>     from using our software for «evil purposes», and this is /not/ an
>     oversight.
>
>
>     -- 
>     Johnny A. Solbu
>     web site, https://www.solbu.net <https://www.solbu.net>
>     PGP key ID: 0x4F5AD64DFA687324
>     _______________________________________________
>     The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and
>     not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official
>     statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an
>     opensource.org <http://opensource.org> email address.
>
>     License-discuss mailing list
>     License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>     <mailto:License-discuss at lists.opensource.org>
>     http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>     <http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
>
> 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/20210201/e700071a/attachment.html>