<html><head></head><body>Entirely correct.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Discrimination occurs when you treat identical situations in different ways because the subject belongs to a different group of people.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Copyleft does not discriminate. If A holds copyright in X and B doesn't, A has rights and B has a grant, so their position is different. But that doesn't change if you reverse their positions.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
If however A holds copyright in X and B holds copyright in Y and A can do things with XY that B can't do, that's discriminatory, because A has asymmetrical powers on Y that B has not on X, provided that this is *a condition of the grant* and not a free decision of B. If B has contributed substantial work in XY under more permissive conditions, B will have less "power" over the combination. That's a consequence of their respective licensing choice, not a condition of the grant.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Claiming that Agpl is discriminatory is preposterous. Maybe Agpl touches upon use of modified software in a way that some may think it's too burdensome, but it requires A and B the same compliance; upstream and downstream are treated equally. Honestly, despite I don't like SSPL very much, I don't find it discriminates.<br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Cheers <br clear="none">
<br clear="none">
Carlo <br clear="none">
<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><div class="gmail_quote">On 6 Nov 2018, "Kevin P. Fleming" <kevin+osi@km6g.us> wrote:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
<pre class="k10mail">My two cents: my understanding of OSD 5 was that 'discrimination'<br clear="none">applied to natural, inherent characteristics of the persons or groups<br clear="none">in question, or to behaviors they choose to engage in outside of the<br clear="none">usage of the software, not to the ways in which they planned to<br clear="none">consume, distribute, or modify the software. The typical list of<br clear="none">protected characteristics (race/ethnicity, religion, gender, age,<br clear="none">economic status, etc.) and membership in groups would be the ways I'd<br clear="none">consider 'discriminatory' in the context of OSD 5, not the fact that a<br clear="none">person or group wants to incorporate software into a proprietary<br clear="none">product. That would fall into OSD 6, possibly, or not at all.<br clear="none">On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 12:32 PM Luis Villa <luis@lu.is> wrote:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"></pre><blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf; padding-left: 1ex;">On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 9:08 AM Kyle Mitchell <kyle@kemitchell.com> wrote:<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">As for distinguishing network software development from<br clear="none">other kinds of software, plenty of approved copyleft<br clear="none">licenses discriminate among ways of creating new software<br clear="none">with old. For example, the weak copyleft licenses, LGPL,<br clear="none">MPL, EPL. Arguably, so do the original, strong, GPL-style<br clear="none">licenses, now that we have network copyleft. GPLv3<br clear="none">"discriminates" against proprietary development generally,<br clear="none">and among those, privileges developers who distribute<br clear="none">software over those who provide it as services.</blockquote><br clear="none"><br
clear="none">GPL v3 also discriminates against those who distribute User Products, burdening them with extra obligations. I don't recall anyone seriously suggesting at the time that this was a violation of OSD 6, though I'd be curious to revisit the archives in my copious free time :(<br clear="none"><br clear="none">(GPL v3 also arguably discriminates against those who wish to exercise their legal rights as granted by laws that implement anti-circumvention provisions of the '96 WIPO treaty, though that's a weaker argument.)<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0.8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">Copyleft is inherently discriminatory. For reasons I set<br clear="none">out in my post at the section linked below, that kind of<br clear="none">discrimination evidently isn't the kind 5 and 6 prohibit.<br clear="none">Where developers have a choice to make their code free or<br
clear="none">nonfree, copyleft exists precisely to encourage and require<br clear="none">the free choice.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regulation.html#discrimination">https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regulation.html#discrimination</a></blockquote><br clear="none"><br clear="none">+1 to this. Copyleft has always been an odd fit with OSD 5 and 6, particularly 6. This discussion will be healthiest if we can grapple with that honestly instead of tying ourselves in knots to deny it.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Luis<br clear="none"><hr><br clear="none">License-review mailing list<br clear="none">License-review@lists.opensource.org<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a></blockquote><br clear="none"><hr><br
clear="none">License-review mailing list<br clear="none">License-review@lists.opensource.org<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a><br clear="none"></blockquote></div></body></html>