[License-review] Approval: OIN License (Open Innovation License)

[Andrew Nassief]

Also outside of the previous point that I iterated and how it is illogical
to go by the morally restrictive argument in regards to a mission
statement, people need to keep in mind that adapting an open source license
is voluntary. If they don't agree with a mission statement like mine, they
shouldn't use the license. Just like how it someone doesn't agree w/ the
GNU's preamble they shouldn't use it. Many licenses are created for
specific purposes as well. License usage is voluntary so outside of legal
restrictive argument, arguments solely based on morality and thought
shouldn't exist when reviewing an open source license. Humans have free
will and good judgement, which means if the OSI selectively restricts it on
the basis of personal moral accountability of the mission statement, they
should apply the same to everyone else. Also, I think it is a great
disservice because I feel people have the intellectual capabilities to know
whether they align with a mission statement, pre-amble, or license for that
matter. The Chinese dissent test is irrelevant of an argument, because one
can then go ahead and scrub a bunch of OSI wording to align with China's
communist party and so forth. That veto argument by my colleague is a
slippery slope for interpretation.

Anyways the license by license analysis will be provided soon.

On Sun, Dec 27, 2020, 12:31 PM Andrew Nassief <kamalandrew55 at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi, the Chinese government monitors all network packets of people's IP
> included distributed software. Lots of open source software is specifically
> illegal in a communist regime and one would state that likely all the OSI
> and definition of OSD wouldn't pass the Chinese dissent test.
>
> This is at goodwill. Morally restrictive is different then being legally
> restrictive. Making technology that isn't intentionally built to harm
> humanity to the best of your knowledge is a very low bar of moral
> accountability. That is the lowest of the bar.
>
> If people build technology for the sake of human enslavement or harm, then
> eventually you will have no OSI and the definition of free software at that
> point is meaningless.
>
> Moral restrictive and personal reasoning aren't within the context of the
> law and this would require OSI to further explain and expand their
> definition much further in ways that allow them to be both for and against
> free software.
>
> Anyways I notice most people rather veto before hearing my license by
> license analysis. I am obviously not trying to waste everybody's time and
> not welcomed much by this community.
>
> Inspiring a moral objective of ethics is a good thing that needs to be
> talked about in tech. You can twist the extent of discrimination to state
> that people against the distribution of free and open source software is
> making OSI in violation of rule #6. Anybody can find logical fallacies for
> rejection in pretty much anything.
>
> Anyways I plan on providing the license by license analysis quite soon.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201227/e255513a/attachment-0001.html>