<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
Speaking personally, I support anyone who wants to use a software
license for whatever ends important to them. The problem I have is
that picking and choosing who may use software is not reconcilable
with the current OSD, which has over 20 years of proven successful
track record. Open source is eating the world because "open source"
has a known, relatively predictable meaning. Governments, businesses
and individuals make far-reaching and wide-ranging choices about
software based on the fact that the software meets the definition of
open source. To change the definition in any significant way will
destroy their trust and they will no longer be able to rely on the
term as meaningful. "Open source" will just become market speak,
like "best of breed." This is why the approval of CAL took so long;
it was a step beyond any currently existing approved license and we
had to make sure (based on insights from "just opinion holders," who
are extremely important) that it wasn't a step too far.<br>
<br>
So yes, I think it's perfectly ok to create a category that limits
the use of software based on the identity of the user, but it can't
also meet the longstanding definition of "open source."<br>
<br>
Pam<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">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>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/10/2020 11:13 PM, Grahame Grieve
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAG47hGZDWCA4tkbtZO+nNGz6h34NGUeuNMJrPTsTGAu8AwzW6Q@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">The question for me is whether there's some useful
middle ground. Is there value in having an ethical use license
where the creator gives up many but not all rights, in a way
that respects some core tenets of the open source movement, and
where the ethical restrictions are careful, and that this place,
while not proper open source, is still a recognisable benefit
with a name like Ethical Public Source or something?
<div><br>
</div>
<div>A different phrasing might be, do the managers of <a
href="http://opensource.org" moz-do-not-send="true">opensource.org</a>
believe in all or nothing? Personally, I think that it's
consistent with the open source philosophy to encourage
creators to be as open as they can be, and not to encourage
the more predatory aspects of proprietary source just because
it''s not wholly open source. Noting that I, of course, am
just an opinion holder, not someone who is important.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Grahame</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Wed, Mar 11, 2020 at 1:33
PM Russell Nelson <<a href="mailto:nelson@crynwr.com"
moz-do-not-send="true">nelson@crynwr.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px
0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">On
3/10/20 3:32 PM, Pamela Chestek wrote:<br>
<br>
> On 3/10/2020 1:32 PM, Russell McOrmond wrote:<br>
>> "I think the fundamental thing that bothers me the
most about the OSD<br>
>> 1.x is that it grants rights downstream, but doesn’t
give the creators<br>
>> any real rights. And that’s a major difference
between open and<br>
>> #EthicalSource — ethical source is about empowering
creators."<br>
>> <a
href="https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1234307401169408001"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1234307401169408001</a><br>
>><br>
> I was struck by this too. The reality is that, by virtue
of the<br>
> structure of copyright, creators (or more accurately
authors) have ALL<br>
> the rights and it's only through license that they give
up some of those<br>
> rights. An author is free to craft a license to whomever
they choose on<br>
> the terms they choose. So I didn't understand the
argument.<br>
But only those licenses which give up the right to control
use, <br>
modification, and redistribution may be called Open Source.
Licenses <br>
which retain the right to allow only ethical use not not Open
Source <br>
.... And That Is Okay. It's always been okay. But it's not our
way, and <br>
will never be our way.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a
href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br clear="all">
<div><br>
</div>
-- <br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">-----<br>
<a href="http://www.healthintersections.com.au" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">http://www.healthintersections.com.au</a>
/ <a href="mailto:grahame@healthintersections.com.au"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">grahame@healthintersections.com.au</a>
/ +61 411 867 065</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>