[License-discuss] Language, appropriateness, and ideas
pamela.chestek at opensource.org
Fri Feb 28 13:19:07 UTC 2020
Following in my capacity as a Board member of the OSI:
On 2/28/2020 7:46 AM, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> VM Brasseur (OSI) dixit:
>> The purpose of the list is right there, as they say, on the tin:
>> license discuss.
> Ooooh, but you forgot to quote the most important part!
> It says, in total: ‣‣‣ license-discuss at lists.opensource.org
> There’s an “opensource” in there that, as hosted by the OSI,
> directly means OSI certified Open Source software® licences.
>> We are all here to discuss, learn, research, share, and investigate the
>> world of software licenses as they pertain to open source. Josh, Van,
> Yes, as they pertain to Open Source as per the OSI, with the
> OSD as statutes of sorts, and the shared understanding of Open
> Source as a means to liberalise this.
>> This investigation and learning may at times involve discussion of
>> concepts—such as the Persona Non Grata preamble—with which you may
> Indeed, but only up to the point where…
>> disagree. Whether or not these concepts work against the mission of OSI
>> and the meaning of the OSD isn't beside the point, it _is_ the point.
> … this precisely was established. Once established that it is,
> it’s no longer ontopic.
That is incorrect. The License-discuss list is the correct place to
discuss the OSD and all aspects of it, including whether it is still
relevant, whether it should be changed, it's strengths and weaknesses,
and whether it is compatible with ethical source concepts.
>> If people are not free to ask questions like this here, they will not
> People can ask questions, but they may not insist, after some
> point, that the thing is still to be discussed or even accepted.
If you do not like a discussion, or find it too tedious, don't read it.
> People may ask, but they need to be prepared to be told things
> contrary to their opinion.
As with this email.
>> Supporters, not sycophants, and not blind followers. By providing a
>> safe space for people to explore these questions around the OSD and
> I’m sorry, but the OSD *is not about building safe spaces*.
> It’s about certifying licences that provide certain freedoms;
> few could be more contrary to that than licences that add
> restrictions to promote someone’s social concepts.
The license lists must be safe spaces to discuss unpopular topics
without fear of personal attacks. If you are not in agreement with that,
then this is not the right place for you.
> I, for one, am glad ESR’s mail made it through in a fullquote.
> I may not agree with him on some things (vehemently disagee on
> some even), but I’m fully behind what he said.
You are free to advocate against ethical source licenses as much as you
like, and do it strongly, as long as you do it in a way that respects
all people and all viewpoints.
Chair, License Review Committee
Open Source Initiative
More information about the License-discuss