[License-review] Approval: OIN License (Open Innovation License)
kamalandrew55 at gmail.com
Sun Dec 27 16:35:39 UTC 2020
Hi, the usage of difficult words doesn't break OSD standards and that
premise doesn't seem to make sense for me. Also, I don't know of many
cultures that require you to agree to create technology for the sake of
destroying humanity so I think any cultural conflict that could arise
doesn't exist. Also this as I said, has a non-binding clause.
Nonetheless, if I do a license by license analysis as Roland suggested,
which I will do extremely soon, I may be able to argue that
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
of the open source definitions would be violated if my license isn't
acceptable. The counterclaim proof would be that:
1) Specific areas you have problems with have been prominent in other
2) This doesn't directly break the OSD or OSI.
3) I am a technological ethicist and want to include my mission statement.
GitHub's choosealicense currently requires you to be on the GNU list or get
accepted by the OSI to make a pull request. One can argue that a rejection
would prevent my endeavors.
4) Many people are worried that if cases 1 and 2 are correct, and if my
licenses don't break the rules and get accepted, other licenses can be
submitted with problematic mission statements. This argument is irrelevant
because hate against a targeted group and/or forms of workplace
descrimination are different than a statement in regards to technological
ethics. My mission statement doesn't incite violations by the EEOC or legal
definitions of discrimination. I am only making case #4 in regards to if a
decision is made in favor of me, so that people can point to this case if
"certain trolls" come in wanting to submit problematic things.
Anyways I will respond to Rolland's suggestion soon.
Best regards, Andrew
On Sun, Dec 27, 2020 at 9:21 AM Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> wrote:
> Andrew Nassief dixit:
> >Anybody who releases software under the "Open Innovation License" agrees
> >at goodwill, build or release technology for the betterment of humanity
> >meant with the intention to harm a human being. They agree to a prima
> >moral duty through consequential deontology to understand that technology
> Users would need to look up half the words of this and then still
> not understand the meaning.
> Also, even if not “legally binding” requiring people to agree to
> do such things is an absolute no-go. In many cultures, a man’s
> word binds them stronger than legal mumbo-jumbo, and this effectively
> requires them to do as written (after trying to understand it in the
> first place) or become oath-breakers which is totally inacceptable.
> In American capitalist culture, this may not be so much of a problem,
> but for large parts of the rest of the world this is a restriction on
> distribution (not limited to redistribution), plus it creates burdens
> on distributors outside of the scope of the licenced work.
> We’ve got a word for this: nōn-free.
> I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
> when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy
> If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
> existence. -- Coywolf Qi Hunt
> 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
> License-review at lists.opensource.org
Andrew Magdy Kamal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the License-review