[License-review] Approval: OIN License (Open Innovation License)

[Andrew Nassief]

Hi I'm not dismissing concerns about morally enforcing. The claim isn't
legally binding. You are arguing about it being morally binding. The
mission statement I have emphasizes personal responsibility. There is no
central authority claiming thought or how one adheres to the mission
statement. If one disagrees with the statement, the use a different open
source license. Nobody is enforced to do anything. This isn't far off as
being upset with codes of conduct that says at good faith or followed in
spirit. What about stuff like CAL-1.0 that specifically state "for private
purposes" in a list. Emphasis on the word "for". Again, people aren't
enforced to use this license and their extent or responsibility is their
extent.

On Sun, Dec 27, 2020, 12:57 PM Thorsten Glaser <tg at mirbsd.de> wrote:

> Andrew Nassief dixit:
>
> >Hi, the Chinese government monitors all network packets of people's IP
> >included distributed software. Lots of open source software is
> specifically
> >illegal in a communist regime and one would state that likely all the OSI
> >and definition of OSD wouldn't pass the Chinese dissent test.
>
> “dissent”? No.
>
> But no, it’s not about that. It’s about requirements on behaviour, such
> as being forced to submit patches, phoning home, etc. but your proposal
> is even worse than that.
>
> >This is at goodwill. Morally restrictive is different then being legally
>
> Whatever “goodwill” is for each individual. But by requiring a promise
> as part of a “licence”, only disclaiming legal enforceability, is only
> white-washing; it’s a requirement on behaviour, bound to a man’s honour,
> so it counts, and so it’s not permitted.
>
> >If people build technology for the sake of human enslavement or harm, then
>
> Again: THAT IS NOT THE POINT.
>
> Saying “Requiring a person to do A is bad” is not the same as
> requiring a person to do not-A.
>
> Open Source is about being able to work with the work with very few
> strings attached (strong copyleft stretching this a lot), and with
> those strings very carefully selected. It’s not about adding more
> strings, especially not those with a scope outside of the work in
> question.
>
> >Inspiring a moral objective of ethics is a good thing that needs to be
>
> Trying to keep the high ground by trying to argument with “morality”
> yet at the same time dismissing concerns about morality enforcing
> a clause in your proposal that you only write is not legally enforced
> in order to attempt to pass licence review is… questionable as well.
>
> I’m not going to waste my time trying to argue individual points any more.
>
> bye,
> //mirabilos
> --
> <diogenese> Beware of ritual lest you forget the meaning behind it.
> <igli> yeah but it means if you really care about something, don't
>     ritualise it, or you will lose it. don't fetishise it, don't
>     obsess. or you'll forget why you love it in the first place.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20201227/a9372183/attachment.html>