[License-review] Consensus on L0-R

[Kyle Mitchell]

On 2018-06-19 17:06, Bruce Perens wrote:
> *> 5. If you run this software to analyze, modify, or generate> software,
> you must release source code for that software.*
>
> At the time, around November 11, I pointed out that this really obviously
> and inarguably violated OSD #6, and I wasn't the only one pointing this
> out. As far as I am aware, the consensus was that it wasn't an Open Source
> license.

Obvious and inarguable aren't arguments, but conclusions.
Expecting bare conclusions to make up minds, or using them
to block formal consideration procedurally, is what I meant
by "throwing weight" on another license-review thread this
month.

I've responded to this conclusion with history:

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-November/003292.html

I also addressed your argument from the text of OSD:

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-November/003289.html

I am not sure how your are discerning consensus.  I do
recall you and Carlo came out definitely against
conformance.

I remain open to the idea that you may be right.  But not
for no reason.  I'll keep testing the reasons I'm given.

> The discussion devolved to topics not connected with the license after
> that, eventually requiring intervention by OSI's president.

You refer to this message?:

http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2017-November/003277.html

The topic of how, exactly the license-review process works
is alive on the list again today.

> I understand that you want to create a business method for people who don't
> have one now. One that OSI is not obligated to approve as Open Source.

I'm not asking OSI to approve a business model.  It isn't
even mentioned in the current license text.  I'm asking OSI
to approve an evolved reciprocal license that says, in
essence, what Richard and others said GPL was meant to say
in its day, leveraging what we've learned about copyright
licensing since.  Users of that license needn't sell
exceptions, any more than users of GPL or AGPL must sell
exceptions.

Approved licenses _do_ mention or address exceptions and
parallel terms.  Artistic (directly).  Apache (warranties).
GPL (if you count writing in for an exception).

> But you really could be out creating a user community for this as a
> non-Open-Source license. Lots of people use non-Open-Source licenses.
> However, when I asked you to introduce me to someone who was interested in
> the license, no names were forthcoming. So, I have to believe this is only
> theoretical.

It doesn't matter.  Blocking here isn't calculated to help.

We've addressed this.  If popularity is required for OSI
approval, OSI should say so.  And it should accept that
license submissions _won't_ come in open to revision.  If
you require sailing ships, the ships you get will have
sailed...

-- 
Kyle Mitchell, attorney // Oakland // (510) 712 - 0933