<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
Moved to license-discuss, since it's not specifically about CAL.<br>
<br>
On 5/11/2019 1:48 PM, Smith, McCoy wrote:<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2D52F7EE739F8542A700CAB96276B5198B10818F@fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I’m
with Luis on this. I laid out a test at CopyleftConf on how I
personally think the decision process should go:<br>
<br>
<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">1.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Licenses
should be evaluated solely on their fidelity to the standards
of freedom/openness, and the quality of their drafting in
meeting those standards<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level2
lfo3">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">a.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Experimentation
is not necessarily a bad thing<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph"
style="margin-left:1.0in;text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0 level2
lfo3">
<!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">b.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman"">
</span></span></span><!--[endif]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">Even
failed experimentation<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoListParagraph" style="text-indent:-.25in;mso-list:l0
level1 lfo3"><!--[if !supportLists]--><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D"><span
style="mso-list:Ignore">2.<span style="font:7.0pt
"Times New Roman""> </span></span></span></p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<snip><br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:2D52F7EE739F8542A700CAB96276B5198B10818F@fmsmsx117.amr.corp.intel.com">
<p class="MsoNormal"><span
style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D">I
do think it ought to be made clear, though, whether Freedom
Zero is part of the OSD. I think we’ve had some debate in the
past as to whether it was (I think it is inherently so, but I
don’t see that the OSD makes that explicitly clear). If it is
not, I don’t see how that’s a valid reason to reject any
license.</span></p>
</blockquote>
McCoy,<br>
<br>
A hard rule of "if you can't name an OSD the license doesn't meet it
must be approved" doesn't leave room for stuff that we all clearly
agree doesn't belong, what I think of as the Section 101 problem for
open source licenses.* What if it's just outside the concept? Say I
write a license that is a grant of all patent and copyright rights
but as the only condition of the license you have to come to my
house and feed my goats on Fridays. I don't see any definition that
doesn't comply with, so it should be approved as an open source
license? <br>
<br>
You can contort OSD 5 and 6 to justify it, "you're excluding people
who don't live near you!/are allergic to goats!/are doing more
socially beneficial things on Fridays!" As Richard Fontana said
earlier in the CAL thread, you can rationalize OSD 5 & 6 to
claim discrimination for any limitation. GPL discriminates against
those who won't add their name to a modified file (Section 2(a))
because they are being harassed for working in free software. So I
am skeptical of any theory under OSD 5 & 6 because you can
always find someone who hypothetically is being discriminated
against.<br>
<br>
How do you address the "outside of the scope" problem?<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
PO Box 2492<br>
Raleigh, NC 27602<br>
919-800-8033<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:pamela@chesteklegal.com">pamela@chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="http://www.chesteklegal.com">www.chesteklegal.com</a><br>
<br>
*A reference to Section 101 of the Patent Act, which describes what
is patentable subject matter. There is a school of thought that
patents cannot be invalidated simply because they don't meet the
requirements of Section 101.<br>
</body>
</html>