[License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue 12

Tue Feb 13 15:11:21 UTC 2024

https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/


> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of Daniel Mihai
> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2024 2:48 PM
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue 12
> 
> Thanks all for your input -
> 
> I'm finding it quite challenging to follow the conversations and determine
> who is responding to whom. Is there any way for me to access the forum
> board directly, or am I limited to reading the discussions through email
> notifications only?
> 
> Respectfully,
> 
> Daniel Mihai
> Founder and CTO
> 
> 
> 
> Mobile: +353 (0) 87 450 8112
> E-mail: daniel at anuinitiative.org
> Web-site: https://anuinitiative.org
> 
> 
> Let’s take the initiative!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: License-discuss <license-discuss-bounces at lists.opensource.org> On
> Behalf Of license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org
> Sent: Thursday, February 8, 2024 12:00 PM
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue 12
> 
> Send License-discuss mailing list submissions to
> 	license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> 	http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> discuss_lists.opensource.org
> 
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> 	license-discuss-request at lists.opensource.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	license-discuss-owner at lists.opensource.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re:
> Contents of License-discuss digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative (Bruce Perens)
>    2. Re: documentation on un-enforceability of ethical licenses?
>       (was Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative (Bruce Perens)
>    3. Re: License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue 3 (Tom Callaway)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 20:09:29 +0000
> From: Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAK2MWOuxZ3yGdj=YXM+Sbj_X7szBqjaYcuvksmzjy=kg8xPLwQ at ma
> il.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I apologize for the worse phrasing than necessary. It did not further the
> discussion.
> 
> I'm not mistaken, everyone knew that the Vaccine license was from me
> before the vote. I accepted the penalty. The penalty process should have
> ended at that point. That two people pursue it today seems strange to me.
> 
> I have not returned to license-review since then, nor do I plan to. This is
> simply from my belief in the diminished value of the process, unless it is
> dealing with legislation or case law as Brian mentioned. And of course that is
> rare so far.
> 
> If it is the OSI's sentiment that every  submission must go through the
> process and be treated as honorably as any other, and that I should not
> warn people in this forum about the way they can actually hurt developers
> with a poorly constructed license, I will no longer do so. It's your party.
> I can talk about such things elsewhere.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Bruce
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024, 18:45 Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 2/6/24 02:01, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
> > > I agree with Brian. Of late OSI has made progress in having other
> > > things that make them meaningful than the approval process. Dealing
> > > with legislation and case law is important. pleasing the legal
> > > neophyte who thinks they've invented better licensing is not.
> >
> > There is absolutely no reason to be gratuitously rude.
> >
> > Daniel, please be aware that Bruce does not speak for the OSI Board or
> > any body of the OSI.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Berkus
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.ope
> > nsource.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-
> discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20240206/78443a04/attachment-
> 0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Wed, 7 Feb 2024 05:34:26 +0000
> From: Bruce Perens <bruce at perens.com>
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Cc: Stefano Maffulli <stefano at opensource.org>, Roland Turner
> 	<roland at rolandturner.com>,  Daniel Mihai
> <daniel at anuinitiative.org>
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] documentation on un-enforceability of
> 	ethical licenses? (was Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAK2MWOs8LdGe1ia5_9BJ5nCvOFGQAVmhYyH06+evrbHJfK9N4w@
> mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> This is really very simple. Nations are sovereign powers. You can read up on
> what a sovereign power is. They have to agree to be sued. To make a license
> that would stop Putin from bombing Ukraine would require the existence of
> a god who enforced licenses.
> 
> Within a nation you can to some degree enforce rules against munitions
> contractors. This will end up in something I'm working on, to the joy of the
> ethical crowd, but not for the reason they would want it.
> 
> Both ITAR and EAR have carve outs for open source due to lawsuits. The
> carve outs specifically mention information in the public domain. This is not
> public domain in the copyright sense, but the opposite of trade secret.
> So technically we can share anything we want with North Korea. And that
> makes Open Source possible for anything that is on the munitions list in ITAR
> 121, because how could we keep North Korea from downloading? These
> "munitions" include ultra low bandwith digital voice CODECs and satellite
> ground stations, both Open Source projects I'm involved with in the amateur
> radio community.
> 
> The problem comes up when some military contractor pops up on the
> mailing list of an Open Source project. If you answer them, you might be
> rendering defense services, and suddenly your project is subject to ITAR and
> EAR.
> 
> The best way to protect from that is simply to rule that use out in the license.
> Which would obviously not meet the OSD.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024, 22:41 Roland Turner via License-discuss < license-
> discuss at lists.opensource.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 6/2/24 23:39, Stefano Maffulli wrote:
> >
> > Question for the wider group: Can you point me to a document (legal or
> > otherwise) that argues the unenforceability of ethical clauses, like
> > these ones?
> >
> > Not on unenforceability but on harm to F/OSS communities, I spoke on
> > The critical importance of use-neutrality in F/OSS licensing
> > <https://rolandturner.com/sots/> at SOTS 2020
> >
> >
> > - Roland
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.ope
> > nsource.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-
> discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20240207/6efdfa6a/attachment-
> 0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 19:28:47 +0000
> From: Tom Callaway <spotrh at gmail.com>
> To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> Cc: daniel at anuinitiative.org
> Subject: Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue
> 	3
> Message-ID:
> 	<CACp8ZrLyFsOoNuD+TgNRGp_ci6uyDQ7_8aFk5LyvyikhbxpLBg at mail
> .gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> 
> I think it is worth noting that your license may not hold up to scrutiny should
> you attempt to enforce it.
> 
> If you choose to put this into use, you would be well served to have it
> rewritten by a lawyer with experience in copyright licensing.
> 
> ~spot
> 
> On Tue, Feb 6, 2024, 6:43?PM Josh Berkus <josh at berkus.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 2/5/24 08:38, Daniel Mihai wrote:
> > > AI-OAL Section 4
> > > 4. Environmental Responsibility Clause You must use The Product in a
> > > way that positively contributes to environmental conservation and
> > > sustainability.
> > > You shall not use The Product in any way that significantly harms
> > > the environment, as determined at the discretion of the Organization.
> > >
> > > We are happy to remove the restriction of use for positive
> > > ecological conservation and sustainability, yet we are not happy to
> > > allow usage of the product for means that significantly harms the
> environment - as this
> > >   would go against our companies values/mission/vision.
> > >
> > > Can you please let us know how best we can amend Section 4 in a way
> that
> > >   is compliant with ODS 6?
> >
> > There is no method or wording which allows you to reconcile these two
> > incompatible goals.
> >
> > OSD6 exists because it's not possible for software to be open source
> > while restricting what industries or purposes it's used in.  A lot of
> > us would love to see a workable legal framework for ethical open
> > source licenses, but there simply isn't one.  And folks have been
> > trying for quite some time.
> >
> > That's not to say that you can't use this license.  You can, and you
> > should, given your company's mission.  It just won't be open source.
> >
> > --
> > Josh Berkus
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.ope
> > nsource.org
> >
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-
> discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20240206/7995e7e6/attachment-
> 0001.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Subject: Digest Footer
> 
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-
> discuss_lists.opensource.org
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> End of License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue 12
> ************************************************
> _______________________________________________
> 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