<div dir="ltr"><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 20, 2018 at 2:08 AM, Kyle Mitchell <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kyle@kemitchell.com" target="_blank">kyle@kemitchell.com</a>></span> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Actually, there I point out that RPL ... Their gap to close was web frameworks. L0-R's is development tools.</blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div><br></div><div>Their intent to close a particular gap, to which you draw a parallel, has nothing to do with passing or failing the OSD.</div><div><br></div><div>> 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.<br></div><div><br></div><div>Nope. You are taking use and attempting to apply it to derivative works again.</div><div><br></div><div>Use in #6 means run the program. Use for a field of endeavor means to <i>run the program</i> for any form of work. It is equivalent to "use for any purpose."</div><div><br></div><div>>
<span style="font-size:16px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">Fortunately, the more natural reading of "field of e</span><span style="font-size:16px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">ndeavor", and the examples in OSD#6, don't cover means of </span><span style="font-size:16px;background-color:rgb(255,255,255);text-decoration-style:initial;text-decoration-color:initial;float:none;display:inline">endeavoring, like closed, proprietary software development.</span></div><div><br></div><div>OSD #6 requries that you be permitted to <i>run </i>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.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">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.<br></blockquote><div> </div><div>You missed 1201, and if I took more than a minute I could probably find more.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
As for OSD reading number three, I'm sorry, I don't follow.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>You wanted to know why GPL passed OSD and LR-0 did not.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
What do #2, #3, and #6 require that L0-R fails to provide,<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The right to run the program for use to analyze etc. proprietary software.</div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
This is consensus deployed as a procedural weapon, not<br>
sought as a goal. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> In healthy consensus-based organizations,<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Please do not imply that our organization is unhealthy.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I make my code available for use in free software, and not<br>
for use in proprietary software, in order to encourage<br>
other people who write software to make it free as well. I<br>
figure that since proprietary software developers use<br>
copyright to stop us from sharing, we cooperators can use<br>
copyright to give other cooperators an advantage of their<br>
own: they can use our code.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy<wbr>/pragmatic.html</a><br>
<br>
FSF's own drafting implies the same kind of more nuanced understanding of Freedom 0</blockquote><div><br></div><div>The rest of your discussion did not have to do with license terms, and I didn't feel a need to answer it.</div><div><br></div></div>-- <br><div class="m_-3872789322509271190gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr">Bruce Perens K6BP - CEO, Legal Engineering<br>Standards committee chair, license review committee member, co-founder, Open Source Initiative<div>President, Open Research Institute; Board Member, Fashion Freedom Initiative.<br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div>
</div></div>