[License-review] For Approval: OpenMDW License Agreement, versions 1.1 (OpenMDW-1.1)

[McCoy Smith]

On 8/28/2026 12:00 PM, Rob Landley wrote:
>
> AI's need for Lebensraum is irrelevant to whether copyright 
> termination for an assertion of copyright infringement is compatible 
> with the open source definition.
>
> I would argue that it is not, nor should it be. If this was a term of 
> GPLv2, no company would have ever touched it. It attempts to give 
> sufficiently popular projects blanket permission to infringe any 
> copyright.

As Richard previously established, GPLv3 allows copyright termination 
for an assertion of patent infringement: 
https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2026-August/006142.html. 
Although GPLv2 is not exactly clear on that point, I think there's an 
argument that GPLv2 may have that as well (I haven't studied the FSF's 
interpretation guidelines for GPLv2 to see whether they have ever said 
that explicitly).

The question in my mind then, is what's the difference between copyright 
termination for a patent assertion (OK, at least under GPLv3 and MPLv2) 
and copyright termination for copyright assertion (several have argued 
that that is impermissible)? A few have invoked "software freedom" 
(which I'm not sure how we measure that -- is it the OSD, is it the FSD, 
or something else?) or more explicitly -- Simon in particular -- Freedom 
Zero. Freedom Zero says  you have "[the freedom to *run* the program as 
you wish, for any purpose" 
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/your-digital-life-is-not-yours 
[emphasis added] That's not a copyright right.* It's probably a patent 
right ("use"). So I'd like to understand more about how we get to the 
rationale that if you sue for patent infringement, it's OK to terminate 
(and that doesn't violate Freedom Zero), but it's absolutely 
impermissible to have the same for copyright infringement. Especially 
since, I think, the mere act of running software is probably not 
something you're going to be able to sue for copyright infringement anyway.

FWIW, if your answer is "it's not really grounded in the OSD, or FSD, 
but is more of a gestalt principle around my sense of what is 'software 
freedom,'" that's OK, but you have to understand that OSI is going to 
need to understand the metes and bounds of that principle as we evaluate 
license submissions (both plain old software licenses, and AI licenses) 
going forward, and reasonable minds will likely differ on what is that 
gestalt.

*I understand there is some case law in the USA about ephemeral copies 
potentially being the subject of copyright infringement under the 
copyright right to control copying/reproduction, but those tend to be 
ones that fall outside the bounds of 17 USC 117(a)(1), which would 
likely be implicated in the specific scenarios invoked here.