[License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

[McCoy Smith]

From: Tobie Langel <tobie at unlockopen.com> 
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2020 3:43 PM
To: license-discuss at lists.opensource.org; mccoy at lexpan.law
Subject: Re: [License-discuss] How can we as a community help empower authors outside license agreements?

 

 

Is the OSD a legal document rooted in American law, though? The OSD uses “genetic research” or “being used in a business” as examples of fields of endeavor. The annotated version is even more explicit about section 6’s role.

 

I’d agree that the annotation is not helpful, given all that it really talks about (or talks about as being “major”) is commercial use.  But by that logic, one could put a restriction against any number of non-commercial uses.   For example: “this software may not be used to promote socialism.”  Does that satisfy the OSD?

 

Regardless of how useless such a license would be, wouldn’t a simple MIT license with the additional clause “Must not be use to commit genocide” actually satisfy all OSD criteria? Note I’m absolutely not claiming it would be certified by the OS. It also violates freedom 0, but the four freedoms aren’t part of the OSD

 

Ah, but there are some  of us who have argued they are…

 

Committing genocide is clearly not a field of endeavor as defined by section 6 of the OSD, and people who commit genocide aren’t a protected class that would warrant protection of section 5 (and even if that argument was made, people who commit genocide could still use the software, just not to commit genocide).

 

I’m not sure how you get to those two conclusions.  There are no “protected classes” and “unprotected classes” in the OSD.  They apply to everyone equally.

 

As to whether “genocide” is a field of endeavor, I think many folks have said you can use free or open source software for anything, even things that a large majority of people would find objectionable if not horrifying:



“We've long believed that it should be possible to use software for any purpose; we said the Hacktivismo Enhanced-Source Software License was non-free because it limited this freedom. GPLv3 has no such limits. You can use GPLed software to implement DRM, guide nuclear missiles, or run your own organized crime syndicate—just as you can use it to administer a court, run an animal shelter, or organize your community.”

 

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2007-10-18-gplv3-fud

 

So I think the plain meaning, and the conventional understanding, of OSD 5 & 6 is “you cannot put any restriction against any user, or use, of the software, in an open source license”

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200320/3a8655e7/attachment-0001.html>