<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div dir="auto">Hello VanL,</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">> That said, there is an essential difference between moral/ethical views that are *necessarily congruent* with FOSS and those that are not. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That seems perfectly sensible and logical to me. Morals and ethics are almost allways couched in context.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">> However, it is unclear whether any effort to do so can work, even in theory. FOSS, and the OSD in particular, have strong non-discrimination language at their core. Many ethical licensing schemes are at their core an effort to discriminate.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I'd tend to agree with you. I'm trying to put myself in the original submitters view and "poke at the walls" of the OSD as so many submissions to L-D seem to stumble on such similar problems repeatedly. It may be that there is no way to combine the two as they are in some ways competeing philosophies. But to really answer problems like these on L-D I feel like we need to do better than just say "Nope can't be done, to do so is unethical" and to start exploring their suggestion and ask for a way to counter the OSDs interpretation or relevance. If they do so successfully they helped make the OSD stronger and if not they've helped vet it to today's challenges and fight the stereotype that the osd is a set of dated principles that don't apply to all open source use cases anymore.</div><div dir="auto">In short (and with the utmost respect to all on this list) l-d seems to be more l-proliferationisbadshutthislicensedown. The moment you discount an idea altogether the more likely you missed a loophole, greater threat or worse yet an opportunity to learn.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div><br></div><div style="font-size:100%;color:#000000" dir="auto"><!-- originalMessage --><div>-------- Original message --------</div><div>From: VanL <van.lindberg@gmail.com> </div><div>Date: 2020-02-26 10:24 p.m. (GMT-05:00) </div><div>To: license-discuss@lists.opensource.org </div><div>Subject: Re: [License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas </div><div><br></div></div><div dir="auto">Hi Andrew,<div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I agree that Free Software was developed based upon a particular moral and ethical point of view. I also think you are correct that the moral foundations of FOSS text to attract many people with strong moral convictions.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">That said, there is an essential difference between moral/ethical views that are *necessarily congruent* with FOSS and those that are not. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">There may be a way to incorporate other moral views into a license, and it is acceptable to propose ideas regarding how that may be done. </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">However, it is unclear whether any effort to do so can work, even in theory. FOSS, and the OSD in particular, have strong non-discrimination language at their core. Many ethical licensing schemes are at their core an effort to discriminate.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Thanks,</div><div dir="auto">Van</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">__________________________<br>Van Lindberg<br><a href="mailto:van.lindberg@gmail.com">van.lindberg@gmail.com</a><br>m: 214.364.7985</div><br><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><br></div></div></div></div>
</body></html>