[License-review] License Ragnarök

[Lawrence Rosen]

VM Brasseur requested:
> Please move this conversation to license-discuss.

I will comply. But I don't like it. 

(1) Mostly the same people are on both lists. What do we accomplish by this move other than splitting the important discussion over two archives?

(2) The suggestion that anyone can review a proposed license without referring to and discussing other licenses or the OSD is unreasonable. We live in an ecosystem. Even history is relevant. 

/Larry

-----Original Message-----
From: VM Brasseur (OSI) <vmbrasseur at opensource.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2018 9:03 PM
To: lrosen at rosenlaw.com; License submissions for OSI review <license-review at lists.opensource.org>; License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
Subject: Re: [License-review] License Ragnarök

Please move this conversation to license-discuss.
(a reply should do it, since I set the reply-to accordingly)

Thank you,

--V

> On 24 Oct 2018, at 18:59, Lawrence Rosen <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> wrote:
> 
> Larry Rosen asked:
> > > And you should define "license Ragnarök."
>  
> Josh Berkus answered:
> > A state of universal F.U.D. in which nobody can produce or use any open source software because nobody can figure out how to do so without conflicting with someone's license.
>  
> You are misrepresenting open source licenses. ALL open source software can be used. It can also be copied. Derivative works can be created. Those works can be distributed to the public. Its source code is available. This is true for EVERY OPEN SOURCE LICENSE! You are quoting a universal F.U.D. that open source licenses are in conflict. NOT FOR THOSE PURPOSES!
>  
> Yes, open source licenses are often incompatible for the creation of merged derivative works. But it is a gross misrepresentation to claim that "nobody can figure out how to do so." It is done around the world by developers, with care. True, there are some companies that are afraid of specific wording of certain open source licenses that may create risks to their "corresponding source" or to their "proprietary derivative works." Google/Alphabet is an example of a large company that avoids network-copyleft licenses like the plague, giving up those FOSS free copyrights listed above rather than risk the other license terms and conditions. Even then, dual licensing often allows work-arounds for those companies and profits for developers.  
>  
> Please stop crying about imaginary F.U.D. There are legitimate legal reasons to read the terms of open source licenses carefully, but you exaggerate their incompatibilities and conflicts.
>  
> /Larry
>  
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org