[License-discuss] Data portability as an obligation under an open source license

[Bruce Perens]

Software system administrators are not always SaaS providers. And users are
often administrators of their own software, that is a fundamental point of
Free Software, that you _can_ do that. I don't believe that FSF has ever
made any statement in favor of encumbering the data processed by their
programs. I don't believe they will. And I don't believe that encumbering
user data is in any way a step *forward *for the freedom of that user.

On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:07 PM Luis Villa <luis at lu.is> wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Pamela Chestek <pamela at chesteklegal.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 3.    *A license that requires data portability*.
>>> Section 2.3(b) obliges the user of a software to “provide to any third
>>> party with which you have an enforceable legal agreement, a no-charge copy
>>> … of the User Data in your possession in which that third party has a
>>> Lawful Interest ….” The license submitter confirmed in this sequence of
>>> emails that the intent of this provision is to expand the scope of software
>>> freedom:
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license
>>> -review_lists.opensource.org/2019-May/004123.html
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license
>>> -review_lists.opensource.org/2019-May/004124.html
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license
>>> -review_lists.opensource.org/2019-May/004126.html
>>> The members of the License Review Committee do not agree whether this
>>> is appropriate for an open source license. It therefore requires
>>> extensive additional public discussion before the OSI will be able to reach
>>> a conclusion on this point.
>>>
>>
>> It's my opinion that this is out of scope for an Open Source license. My
>> argument is on the record above and I'm glad to elaborate. I think Arthur
>> (Van's customer) could explain what he wants to do with this and why he
>> thinks it's important. But even if I end up approving of the sentiment, so
>> far I think it would remain out of scope for an OSI approved Open Source
>> license. Of course, you don't need OSI's approval to use any license you
>> wish.
>>
>>
> Access to data is a big part of why I keep asking what OSI means by
> software freedom. If the ultimate rubric for OSI is 'freedom' then I don't
> think you can answer 'how should licenses interact with data' without a
> theory of what 'freedom' means, including whose 'freedom' the standard is.
>
> If 'software freedom' means 'freedom for software system administrators
> (known commonly known as SaaS providers)', then the answer to this is
> probably fairly straightforward: data/privacy rules are an unacceptable
> impingement on their freedom; they should be able to run the software as
> they see fit for their users, with complete flexibility (within legal and
> commercial constraints) to choose how to use/interact with/dispose of data.
> So, in that case, data is not appropriate for an open source license; easy
> call.
>
> If 'software freedom' means 'freedom for software end users (sometimes
> known as human beings)', then the answer to this is also straightforward:
> data is increasingly central to any reasonable assessment of human autonomy
> as mediated by software. This has been obvious for over a decade (I first
> wrote about it publicly in 2008
> <https://wiki.gnome.org/Attic/FreeOpenServicesDefinition/DataControl>).
> Perhaps one might then oppose this on the grounds that *licenses* are *pragmatically
> ineffective* ways to expand this freedom, but it's certainly obvious that *philosophically
> *human control over data is a part of software freedom and within scope
> of any comprehensive theory of software freedom. So perhaps CAL is still
> out of bounds, but on pragmatic grounds, not philosophical.
>
> I'm pretty sure I know how FSF thinks about this philosophically; their
> definition of software freedom has consistently extended to *user*-control:
> user modification of Javascript, activism against DRM, etc. It's possible
> they might oppose CAL on pragmatic grounds, since there's a (strong!) case
> to be made that licensing is an ineffective tool for this, and perhaps even
> (as with some tough cases around DRM) they might decide that freedom zero
> trumps all other rights, even when that definitively reduces user freedom.
> I hope they weigh in on CAL at some point to help further clarify their
> thinking as to how that might translate into practice (both inside and
> outside of licensing).
>
> I genuinely don't know what OSI institutionally thinks software freedom
> means in this context, and would look forward to clarification.
>
> Luis [I'm mostly off the grid starting tomorrow; sorry about the bad
> timing but look forward to seeing how this develops]
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>


-- 
Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190705/fd63bb35/attachment-0001.html>