[License-review] New License for review: ADVPL 1.0

[Lukas Atkinson]

In my opinion, the OSI shouldn't approve this license:

* those "conditions" are unclear
* if the conditions have any weight, they probably make the license non-free

The so-called "conditions" are unclear because all the conditions that were
added to the MIT license are tenets / beliefs, not actionable conditions.
Some of these are phrased in a "should" manner, e.g. "One should strive to
act with compassion". Others are non-actionable statements, e.g. "Every
tenet is a guiding principle …". However we interpret these conditions, the
result is problematic.

If the intended condition is that the recipient of the license must
*believe* these tenets in order to obtain a valid license, that's obviously
non-free, and should be interpreted as an OSD#5 violation.

If the intended condition is that the recipient may only *use* the software
in accordance with these tenets, we run straight into OSD#6 problems. For
example, one tenet talks about "the freedom to offend". This could be
(mis?-)interpreted to forbid the use of the software in an online
moderation context. In any case, the tenets are too vague to clearly
express what actions are forbidden or required, and that's bad for an Open
Source license.

If the tenets are just included as a *manifesto* and not intended as
conditions, then the license is drafted in a misleading manner. Even if the
tenets were moved to a preamble or appendix, I'd be sceptical about the
license.

Some folks may point out that the GPL – clearly an Open Source license –
includes a preamble that also discusses beliefs. But as VanL explained[1]
in a previous discussion on such "Ethical Source" licenses:

> But the difference is that those beliefs are software-centric, and
> about the freedoms and permissions that people should have with regard to
> the software. It is essentially a declaration of belief in Free Software,
> which is not out of line for a FOSS license.

I'd perhaps also add that the GPL's preamble clarifies the intention of the
license, and thus illuminates the license terms. The opposite is true for
the proposed ADVPL, where inserting the tenets adds confusion to a
perfectly cromulent license.

[1]:
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/2020-February/021242.html


On Thu, 5 Sept 2024 at 15:38, Ω Alisson <thelinuxlich at gmail.com> wrote:

> In accordance with the License Review Process
> <http://opensource.org/approval>, I'd like to submit for review the
> Adversary Public License 1.0 (ADVPL), which is composed of the MIT license
> text + 7 tenets from the Temple of Satan. It complies with all terms of
> the Open Source Definition, the suggested tag is ADVPL. Currently no
> significant projects use it, although there is intent once it's approved.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20240905/b713efb3/attachment.htm>