<!DOCTYPE html>
<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>didn't see lukas' message before i sent and he captures a lot of
the same issues I flagged.<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 12/18/2024 5:41 AM, Lukas Atkinson
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAJTYOd2eD_ryqHPwF_GspiVO7qC0fonir3Tc8bqHmAeGRkcQSw@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>It seems that part of this text has been borrowed from
the Unlicense:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In
jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or
authors<br>
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in
the<br>
software to the public domain. We make this dedication for
the benefit<br>
of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and<br>
successors.</blockquote>
<div> </div>
</div>
<div>The proposed PBZC uses this section almost verbatim, with
the change of "the software" to "This Software" and the
insertion of "subject to the provisions above":</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">In
jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or
authors<br>
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in
This<br>
Software to the public domain subject to the provisions above.<br>
We make this dedication for the benefit of the public at large
and to <br>
the detriment of our heirs and successors.</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Much has been written about the problems of the Unlicense,
with its arguably contradictory combination of a public domain
dedication and a copyright license, a problem that the PBZC
repeats. The Unlicense is not a particularly well-drafted
license or PD dedication, and should not serve as a model for
more licenses. That it was eventually OSI-approved has more to
do with its widespread use in some circles. The
legacy-approval discussions can be found in the list archives
starting in March 2020 [1] and then continue for multiple
months. In one of those messages[2], I summarize my concerns
with the Unlicense and provide some links to the even-earlier
discussion when the Unlicense was first submitted in 2012.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>I would be very happy if new licenses/dedications/devices
in the "PD dedication" or "PD equivalent" category make use of
this wealth of prior discussions (well over a decade) and
avoid running into the same problems.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This general concern about this kind of device is in
addition to my reservation about trying to make that PD
dedication *conditional*, which seems to contradict itself.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Another oddity is the narrow definition of "Commercial Open
Source Software", and the potential for this license to be
interpreted in a way that it is limited to use in the "general
public benefit", which would be close to an OSD#6 violation.
The provision (1) may be a meaningless statement of the
license author's intention, but if it's actually a license
condition, then the PBZC is more akin to a non open-source
"Ethical Source" license:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote"
style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Anyone
is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or<br>
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a
compiled<br>
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by
any<br>
means provided:<br>
<br>
1) This Software or Derivative Software is intended to inure
to the<br>
General Public Benefit,[…]</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>So in summary, I am confused, and I'm not 100% confident
that this is an OSD-compliant license that provides full
Software Freedom. I *think* this device is trying to be a
"copyleft ethical public domain dedication", which sounds
impossible to achieve.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>[1]: <a
href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/thread.html#4795"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/thread.html#4795</a></div>
<div>[2]: <a
href="https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004799.html"
moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2020-March/004799.html</a></div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre wrap="" class="moz-quote-pre">_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Communication from the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-review mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:License-review@lists.opensource.org">License-review@lists.opensource.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org">http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>