[License-review] Consensus on L0-R

[Bruce Perens]

On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Kyle Mitchell <kyle at kemitchell.com> wrote:
>
> Actually, there I point out that RPL ... Their gap to close was web
> frameworks. L0-R's is development tools.


Either the RPL passes the OSD or the folks on the board at the time thought
that it did. This does not, however, give any reason that LR-0 should also
pass the OSD.

Their intent to close a particular gap, to which you draw a parallel, has
nothing to do with passing or failing the OSD.

> There's no blanket prohibition on use restrictions in #6 as written.
Rather, there's a prohibition on restrictions on use in specific fields of
endeavor. If "field of endeavor" means running over a network for others
without sharing source or licensing on like terms, or running to produce
output that's a derivative of the program, OSI has approved licenses that
fail #6.

Nope. You are taking use and attempting to apply it to derivative works
again.

Use in #6 means run the program. Use for a field of endeavor means to *run
the program* for any form of work. It is equivalent to "use for any
purpose."

> Fortunately, the more natural reading of "field of endeavor", and the
examples in OSD#6, don't cover means of endeavoring, like closed,
proprietary software development.

OSD #6 requries that you be permitted to *run *any Open Source program for
closed, proprietary software development, which is a field of endeavor. And
thus LR-0 fails the OSD. You can't create a proprietary derivative of the
program.

Use is not an exclusive right of copyright holders under the Copyright
> Act.  It appears in one narrow provision, 117, which applies only to owners
> and distinctly owner-like licensees of copies.
>

You missed 1201, and if I took more than a minute I could probably find
more.

As for OSD reading number three, I'm sorry, I don't follow.
>

You wanted to know why GPL passed OSD and LR-0 did not.


> What do #2, #3, and #6 require that L0-R fails to provide,
>

The right to run the program for use to analyze etc. proprietary software.

This is consensus deployed as a procedural weapon, not
> sought as a goal.


No, if anything is a procedural weapon, it is your insistence on re-arguing
the same topics many times over months. Your license is not Open Source.
You will not be able to convince anyone that it's Open Source with language
implementing a use restriction. No amount of argument will change that.


> In healthy consensus-based organizations,
>

Please do not imply that our organization is unhealthy.


>   I make my code available for use in free software, and not
>   for use in proprietary software, in order to encourage
>   other people who write software to make it free as well. I
>   figure that since proprietary software developers use
>   copyright to stop us from sharing, we cooperators can use
>   copyright to give other cooperators an advantage of their
>   own: they can use our code.
>

That is fine. Give it another name than Open Source. Bask in your fame when
everyone decides to do it your way. Start today. OSI and I are not stopping
you.


>   https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html
>
> FSF's own drafting implies the same kind of more nuanced understanding of
> Freedom 0


The rest of your discussion did not have to do with license terms, and I
didn't feel a need to answer it.

-- 
Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering
Standards committee chair, license review committee member, co-founder,
Open Source Initiative
President, Open Research Institute; Board Member, Fashion Freedom
Initiative.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20180620/6ffab606/attachment.html>