<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>It is an interesting thought experiment about what the reaction
would be if the latitude was given for something offensive, like
scammers, rather than a group that we are generally sympathetic
too. </p>
<p>Pam</p>
<div class="moz-signature">Pamela S. Chestek<br>
Chestek Legal<br>
4641 Post St.<br>
Unit 4316<br>
El Dorado Hills, CA 95762<br>
+1 919-800-8033<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>
<br>
</div>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/6/2026 10:48 AM, Bruce Perens via
License-discuss wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAK2MWOtDOTLmLjKEOdrr3VVFwbMBKRJyP99M0G6bsQ+jTx+7kQ@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">The field-of-endeavor terms of the OSDs seem to be
the ones that people have the most problems with, which is
ironic since the goal is anti-discrimination. I wrote this term
into the OSD not only in response to the various freeware
licenses that restricted commercial use, but specifically
because of my experience with the license of Berkeley SPICE at
the time. This license restricted use of this electronic circuit
simulation program by the Police of South Africa. This was an
"ethical" license, like all of the so-called "ethical" licenses
to follow it, and like them was both impossible of enforcement
(because of a problem in lawsuits against sovereign powers that
even some of the most prominent lawyers associated with OSI at
the time did not seem to understand) and problematic in its
discrimination, especially because by the time we wanted to put
SPICE in Debian the police of South Africa were 50% black and
Apartheid had been defeated for white a while, yet the license
term stood! I wrote to a license executive at University of
California and got no help, obviously I have better contacts
there today and they know what Open Source is now :-) But the
nature of inappropriate "legacy discrimination" in well-meaning
licenses that just got stale, and the potential for pro-life and
pro-choice licenses led me to think that Debian (and then Open
Source) should be a neutral ground where people of different
opinions could put them aside to make great software. The
sentiment stands today.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I don't think discriminatory release fromn terms, rather
than imposition of extra ones, would be that harmful, but we
have had 30 years of Open Source without even much (if any)
discussion of a need for it, so I doubt it's necessary. We
have always had an approved way of doing it, which is to use
two licenses and give the user a choice, the discriminatory
license not being OSI certified, and the non-discriminatory
license in this case already is.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Thanks</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Bruce</div>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Mon, Aug 3, 2026 at 7:52\u202fAM
Kevin P. Fleming via License-discuss <<a
href="mailto:license-discuss@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">license-discuss@lists.opensource.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">On
Mon, Aug 3, 2026, at 09:00, Stefano Maffulli wrote:<br>
> On 8/2/26 18:21, Shao Kai via License-discuss wrote:<br>
>> 1. Does the non-commercial exemption as defined in
the additional<br>
>> permission raise any concerns regarding OSD
Section 6 (No<br>
>> Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor)?<br>
><br>
> Yes, unequivocally. It's stated in <br>
> <a
href="https://opensource.org/licenses/common-reasons-for-rejection-of-licenses"
rel="noreferrer" target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://opensource.org/licenses/common-reasons-for-rejection-of-licenses</a><br>
><br>
> I haven't processed the other questions.<br>
<br>
That was my additional reaction too, but I'm willing to
consider that 'additional permissions' may be acceptable on a
field-of-endeavor basis where 'fewer permissions' are not, as
long as the baseline set of permissions would otherwise be
compatible with the OSD.<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender
and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative.
Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent
from an <a href="http://opensource.org" rel="noreferrer"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">opensource.org</a>
email address.<br>
<br>
License-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:License-discuss@lists.opensource.org"
target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">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"
class="moz-txt-link-freetext">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br clear="all">
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<span class="gmail_signature_prefix">-- </span><br>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Bruce Perens K6BP</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
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>
</body>
</html>