[License-discuss] OSI definition

[Mat K. Witts]

> 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.

> we intend for you to not discriminate. Stop. End of sentence.

This sounds a bit like an overreach to me.

> You're done. Your ship has sunk, your bird has flown, your toast has
popped, your souffle has fallen.

Lol. Yet my humanity is still very much intact.

> Your license is not compatible with the Open Source Definition BY DESIGN.

Nope. Not by design. I can tell you I had not considered OSI compliance
at all, not one bit. I was surprised to learn it fits the definition though.

I have no feelings in this game at all. This is not my problem, it's a
problem for the OSI I think.

> There's really no possible interpretation whereby your discrimination
becomes one we would allow.

Okay, so you might want to come out from behind the OSD then?

> We don't WANT to discriminate, even against "bad" people.

...and how's that working out? I might be a bad person by your
reckoning, that would be ironic - but let's read the license text and
then read the OSD and you tell me you are not discriminating against the
person, (by assuming my intentions - which - by the way - I can tell you
are wrong assumptions)  rather than the actual license.

> You DO want to discriminate.

Generally I find it useful, yes to discriminate between robust arguments
and bigotry for example but hey, I am sure this discussion is not about
anyone here.

> The whole point behind Open Source is the same point behind Free Software

The FSF would not agree with you, if that even matters to you. It
probably doesn't.

> If you don't want your software to be free for anyone to use, then you
aren't distributing Free Software as a concept, and aren't distributing
Open Source as a brand.

Anyone can use leftcopy.org. Anyone at all. Company directors,
employees, shareholders, anyone at all. There is no discrimination. It's
a permissive license and you just have to come to terms with that. I have.