<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/26/2023 2:41 AM, Legal Desk via
License-review wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHANMqyPTgoWO3-HF2m7_Vz4tQxQKZHpFGJRw_=uaJxk-rPSzA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">Please see our attempt to bring clarity to the
submission checklist above:
<div>
<div>OSD 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups </div>
<div> (Y) The license <b>DOES NOT</b> discriminate against
persons or groups. There is Article 5 in the License, which
observes the ''Exclusion'' rights of the Authors and
Contributors, in the context of Exclusion<span
style="color:rgb(32,33,36);font-family:"Google
Sans",arial,sans-serif;font-size:32px">≠</span>Discrimination.</div>
<div>''Any person or group can receive the redistribution
Grant, become a Licensee, or a Licensor(see definitions) and
use the Work for any field of endeavour.'' <i>Let's
consider one(1) real-world example;</i><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Step 1: 1st Jan 2023: License grants the rights to <b>ANY</b>
person.</div>
<div><i>License does not discriminate whether the legal
persons are extremely violent groups like terrorists,
hackers, or data merchants, the grant is immediate, and
the 'non discriminated' entity begins to use the Grant. </i></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Step 2: 1st Jan 2023: The person enjoys the <b>NON</b>
discriminated rights and redistributes.<br>
</div>
<div><i>just like everybody, the 'non-discriminated' entity
redistributes Work, but triggers Step 3 below.</i></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Step 3: 30th Feb 2023: Trigger: <i>'non-discriminated'
entity turns into a 'bad actor'</i><br>
</div>
<div>e.g. 'intentionally' 'uses' the attributed Work for
systematically crashing the autopilot function of an
automobile or an aeroplane. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Step 4: 30th Feb 2023: Cognizance of the trigger; <br>
</div>
<div><i>The<span> </span><b>intended</b> 'use' or 'purpose' or
'both' are made cognizant to the Licensor in a litigation
or suo moto.</i></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Step 5: 30th Feb 2023: Invoking Article 5 to revoke the
grant. <br>
</div>
<div>To avoid any further such type of ''intended'' use of the
Grant by that ''bad actor'' Licensee.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So, a revocable grant is the feature of the license, in
Step 3. We can also treat Article 5 provisions for a
post-incidence legal control, for the protection of other
Licensors and Licensees, ''reusing'' the Grant.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>Therefore,</div>
<div>a. It is our request to the Chair, License Committee,
to please clarify/or disclose your understanding of
Article 5 to substantiate/refute/establish whether Article
5<span style="color:rgb(4,12,40);font-family:"Google
Sans",arial,sans-serif;font-size:20px;background-color:rgba(80,151,255,0.18)">≅</span>OSD
5 spec. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>b. Secondly, are there any </div>
<div>(1) <i>latest</i>, (2) <i>consensus-driven ...</i>guidelines
for the License Submission Process, which are <b><i>specific
and highly contextual to AI systems</i></b> so that we
can use them for a ready reference?<strike> i.e. do we
have a consensus on the definition of what ''open
source'' really means in the context of the
redistribution of AI systems, ? </strike>This submission
is based on the ones updated on 22nd Aug.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks and have a great weekend ahead.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Additional Note on the thread above;</div>
<div>(Y)<b><span class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span>except</b><span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span>Article 5 which
sets up the relinquishment of rights
or .......................................<br>
<div>>>Explanation: <i>''except''</i><span
class="gmail-Apple-converted-space"> </span>here is a
caveat to indicate the presence of Article 5 to the list
members, in order for a focused review of Article 5, and
disambiguate any congruence b/w OSD written guidelines.</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
</blockquote>
The submission guidelines state "Every possible variation of the
application of the license must meet the OSD." The license
discriminates against persons or groups at Step 3 in your
hypothetical, when someone becomes a "bad actor" by engaging in
behavior that your license has defined as unacceptable and the
license is then revoked. At that point you are discriminating
between "bad actors" and "good actors." These types of restrictions
are never approved as open source licenses, no matter how
well-meaning. <br>
<br>
Pamela Chestek<br>
Chair, License Committee<br>
Open Source Initiative<br>
</body>
</html>