[License-discuss] OSI definition

[Mat K. Witts]

> 1. Would this license comply with OSD?

This question hinges upon the interpretation of TWO things. The license
text AND the OSD. The license text is worded more far more carefully
than the OSD since the terms are definitive in the license text. The
only key word that is not defined in the license text is 'use' and that
is deliberate - because a long list of words like 'copy' and 'modify':

"... are a hodgepodge. Some have specific meanings under copyright or
patent law, others almost do or just plain don’t"
[https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-by-Line.html]

ALL of the confusion caused about compliance in cases like this is
because of the loosey-goosey OSD text. Well, maybe 95% of it. McCoy S.
suggested that because a company has officers, employees, affiliates and
customers it is a group vulnerable to discrimination. That is based on a
willfully naive misreading of human rights law, discrimination law and
company law as practiced in the real world. McCoy S also relies on a
company being a 'legal person' to suggest non-compliance, but again that
is a rather exotic interpretation of discrimination law as practiced
which AFAIK is ALWAYS about HUMAN BEINGS, not 'legal persons'.

> how does this really differ from a BSD license (other than some extra
text about company size that has no apparent utility to the license)?

Well, if leftcopy were equivalent to BSD... then there ought to be no
dissenting voices... The opposite is what has happened so there must be
some non-equivalence that people are seeing.

> If however, the license does restrict some form of use, then it’s not
OSD compliant. That’s obvious.

It doesn't. That does seem obvious. Leftcopy can be used for ANYTHING...
it is not an 'ethical' license so objections based on restrictions on
'field of endeavor' are mistaken.

> 2. Should the OSI licensing board consider the above question?

Of course. The feedback (apart from yourself) has consistently and
clearly been subjected to sharp-shooting - people don't like the license
for whatever reason and are objecting on grounds that are not supported
by the OSD. If that matters to you then this license is ready to be
submitted for actual consideration, but if the OSD doesn't matter and is
there just as window dressing... then of course everyone's time spent
here discussing license compliance is wasted time.

> 3. Who does this benefit and how?
The motivation is not as frivolous as the Chicken Dance License (CDL).
The CDL is not OSD compliant IMO because it discriminates against HUMAN
BEINGS that can’t perform the chicken dance. Leftcopy only restricts
companies structured in a certain way, based on size and format. With
the risk of boring everyone to tears it's important that participants
understand that all officers, employees and anyone connected to Google
or Amazon can use work applied to leftcopy. The restriction is only on
the legal entity, Amazon, Inc. or whatever it's called... the corporate
entity NOT the people. Jeff Bezos could use it if he wanted.

> At the end, I think you succeeded at pointing to a potential
misinterpretation of the OSD terms.

Yes.

> maybe we just need a footnote or FAQ to clarify (if it is indeed unclear)

Oh my, judging by this, it is VERY unclear. 'Not restricting field of
use' should mean EXACTLY that. However, just because people can use
code, it doesn't mean they can use it for their company, or that the
company can use that code, in the US that comes under 'work for hire'
which is a legal theme that is beyond the OSD. If we wnat to be really
clear, we have to get beyond the banal assertion that a company is a
field of endeavor, it VERY clearly is not... and neither is a company a
human being!!