<div dir="ltr">One of the challenges the Ethical Source Movement will continue to face is related to 'ethical' their <i>nom de net</i>. But it appears to be a distraction for the issues being raised to this list. I urge people who care about ethics to pursue ethical pursuits. The questions posed here, however, have to do with labeling, interpretation, definitions, scope, and who decides what to call things. <div><br></div><div>I'll elaborate and provide a tl;dr at the bottom. Skip if you wish...<div><br></div><div>Many people wish to publish their code under "source-available" licenses that are almost like open source, but not all ways. These licenses are in the marketplace today. Some vendors who back open source projects have moved to mostly-open licenses (open to most, open for most things, etc.). If you publish under the CC-BY-NC license, you restrict<font face="arial, sans-serif"> c</font><span style="color:rgb(36,41,46);font-family:arial,sans-serif">ommercial use.</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> Similarly when university projects are "</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(36,41,46)">provided to the public strictly for educational and academic research purposes." </span>ESM is one more example of this category, where the specifics differ (and are in some flux). </div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(36,41,46)"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(36,41,46)">Side distraction: There are important differences between discriminating against a user vs. a use. e.g. can a commercial entity use CC-BY-NC content in a non-commercial way? If a blogger has an ad unit on their blog is their blog a vehicle of commerce? Great questions for the lawyers etc. since some of these cases depend on jurisdiction, case law, etc. </span>That's not the question being posed here.</div><div><span style="color:rgb(36,41,46);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div>Side distraction<span style="color:rgb(36,41,46);font-family:arial,sans-serif">: Does discriminating against companies imply that companies are evil? Some people believe large companies are evil. Some people believe governments are. Some believe all religions are. Some people all but their own are. Why do people want discriminatory licenses? Maybe it's homophily, maybe better business outcomes, maybe they're convinced it could make the world a better place. That's not the </span>question<span style="color:rgb(36,41,46);font-family:arial,sans-serif"> being posed here.</span></div><div><br></div><div>Rather: when someone creates a project and seeks to use a source-available license that operates similarly to open source, but includes user or usage restrictions, what's a good name to give the license scheme? It's not Open Source (by current definition), but it's something. Changing the Open Source Definition would blur these together into one category, that seems like it would cause more confusion with no upside. </div><div><div><span style="color:rgb(36,41,46);font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(36,41,46);font-family:arial,sans-serif">Instead, we need a neutral name, and maybe a list that categorizes different types of these source-available licenses. </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;color:rgb(36,41,46)">I'd start with: </span><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software</a> There's a neutral name and a list. And the process for improving this list open for people to modify and clarify.</div></div><div><div><br></div><div>Then a working group can come up with a workflow:</div><div>1. Do you want some people to be restricted from benefiting from your code? Select the restriction type below...</div><div>2. Do you want your project to be restricted to certain fields of endeavors? Select the restrictions below...</div><div>3. If you don't wish to discriminate, select one of the Open Source licenses below...</div><div>4. If you wish to uphold the 4 freedoms, select one of the Free Software licenses below...</div><div><div> <br></div></div><div><div>Then, independently, groups who create and promote discriminatory license schemes can work with their communities and lawyers to address the many side issues listed above. e.g. If an entity participates in commerce with a government agency that violates human rights, but also has a division that performs social good, does that division get to use my code? Good question for that group to address. Each group can use whatever name they want for their movement, restrict what they want, etc. But it would be most helpful not to blur existing definitions or confuse consumers.</div><div><br></div><div>tl;dr: What about the classification "Source-available" is insufficient for the Ethical Source movement such that changing the OSD is seen as a benefit? Why not proceed developing and enhancing the Ethical Source movement materials and work with the Source-available movement to refine their categories such that Ethical Source is best understood as a source-available scheme? I believe that's what it seeks to be. </div></div></div><div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><p style="margin:0px;font-family:"Verizon NHG DS",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1em;text-align:left;line-height:100%;color:black"><span style="font-weight:bold">Gil Yehuda: </span>I help with external technology engagement</p><p style="margin:0px;font-family:"Verizon NHG DS",Arial,sans-serif;font-size:1em;text-align:left;line-height:100%;color:black"><br></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:24 AM John Cowan <<a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org">cowan@ccil.org</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"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 10:17 AM Russell Nelson <<a href="mailto:nelson@crynwr.com" target="_blank">nelson@crynwr.com</a>> wrote:</div><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr"><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 3/18/20 12:40 PM, John Cowan wrote: </blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
> Note that I am fully supportive of the position that there may be and <br>
> are Open Source licenses, in the sense of meeting the OSD's terms, <br>
> that are not OSI Certified (TM).<br>
<br>
Who decides that?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You, me, or anyone else. Law students do a lot of exercises of the form "Here is a fact situation, here is a legal definition; does the situation meet the definition?" That doesn't make them judges or juries, of course.</div><div><br></div><div>That's also what we do on license-review: we say if we think a license is open source, and we can and do disagree. Sorry to bring up King Charles's head again, but when I presented the MS-PL to that list, it was because I thought it was open source; I still think so, and indeed the Board eventually agreed with me, so that it became not merely open source but OSI Certified (tm). But no part of the OSD involves the notion that a license cannot be open source if it is not certified.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>John Cowan <a href="http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan" target="_blank">http://vrici.lojban.org/~cowan</a> <a href="mailto:cowan@ccil.org" target="_blank">cowan@ccil.org</a><br>He played King Lear as though someone had played the ace.<br> --Eugene Field<br></div><div><br></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org" target="_blank">License-discuss@lists.opensource.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote></div>