[License-discuss] OSI definition

[Nigel T]

This thread consists of the list offering consensus that your license fails the OSD and you replying “nope, you guys are all wrong”

Sorry, but you don’t get to define what the OSD says or even what OSI’s historical interpretation of the OSD...aka the spirit of the law.

And you also don’t get to define who are people...even if corporate personhood is somewhat gray, given they have some of the same constitutional protection as natural people I’m inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt until SCOTUS definitely rules otherwise.

So let’s recap...your license attempts to deliberately exploit an ambiguity in the letter of the OSD that has been understood by the community to mean you don’t get to restrict who gets to use open source, including companies we don’t like, to attempt to violate the spirit of the OSD.

Yeah, no.

Nice try though...

> On Jan 25, 2021, at 7:07 AM, Mat K. Witts <email at dheep.net> wrote:
> 
>> 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!!
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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