<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 3/15/2020 8:19 PM, Coraline Ada
Ehmke wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:4DBB0739-9A1A-4EBC-8E02-49ED8C9EEED5@idolhands.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Mar 15, 2020, at 7:07 PM, Russell Nelson <<a
href="mailto:nelson@crynwr.com" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">nelson@crynwr.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class=""><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0);
font-family: LucidaGrande; font-size: 12px; font-style:
normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal;
letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent:
0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal;
word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;
text-decoration: none; float: none; display: inline
!important;" class=""><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>Ethical
software is by definition not open source.<span
class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">Can you point to any specific points in the
definition of Ethical Open Source that conflicts with the OSD?
(I’m not talking about ELOS.)</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class=""><a href="https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/"
class="" moz-do-not-send="true">https://ethicalsource.dev/definition/</a></div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<br>
</blockquote>
The ESD is orthogonal in many respects. It talks about aspects that
are exterior to the software, e.g., having a Code of Conduct,
deleting user data on request, and requesting voluntary payment. The
OSD describes attributes of the software itself. <br>
<br>
As to those aspects of the ESD that are about the attributes of
software, whether a license will comply with both is going to depend
on what the actual license itself says. As an example, a license
could still comply with ESD 7 by not asking for royalty payments
(since ESD 7 is voluntary) and it would also meet the OSD 1, but if
a license did ask for royalty payments then it would not meet OSD 1.
So it's not possible to generalize and say that in all cases a
license will necessarily meet both standards or that one standard is
a superset of the other. <br>
<br>
Are ESD 4 and 5 internally inconsistent with ESD 1? It depends on
what you mean by "not prohibit[ng] modification [and] derivative
works ..." ESD 4 and 5 do prohibit certain kinds of modifications,
i.e., those that would impair accessibility or not prioritize user
safety. I would say these kinds of limitation is not "in the general
spirit" of open source distribution but it would be a case-by-case
evaluation based on how that limitation was included in the license.
If a license was submitted that said something like "you must
include text-to-speech functionality in you modifications," I would
say that limitations would be a violation of OSD 3 as historically
interpreted. If you said "you may not modify this software to limit
a visually impaired user's access," that would be a violation of OSD
5 because it discriminates based on visual acuity.<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>
</body>
</html>