(For full background, see previous thread) Before beginning, I strongly discourage anyone from using these ideas with out talking to a lawyer; licenses are complex tools and the law is not kind to those who violate it, particularly marginalized people. I also think a far more diverse forum than this mailing list or Twitter are the proper places to address these issues. And as always, I am not a lawyer.
My second idea is called Dual Licensing for Justice. I'll describe the idea first and follow with a list of open questions I have about the idea. Description: The idea for Dual Licensing for Justice comes from, you guessed it, dual licensing and my own experience with the [license for the Houdini Project]( https://github.com/houdiniproject/houdini/blob/master/LICENSE) which I help lead. It's additionally inspired by the GPLvX-or-later license notice. In this tactic, a strong copy-left license could apply to the software. The community would draft a special exception to that license which grants all users except a set of listed entities the right to use the software under a more permissive license. As an example, consider the following, utterly non-legally valid special exception: --- As a special exception to the normal AGPLv3 license, all users except Amazon and their employees may choose, to redistribute and/or modify this software under the LGPLv3 license. --- This special exception makes clear who the community considers a bad actor and initially imposes greater obligations on them than anyone else. That said, I strongly believe it is FSD compatible and also believe it is OSD compatible. All parties receive a set of rights and obligations that comply with both definitions. As in the Persona non Grata Preamble, this special exception serves as a clear statement on the community's view on who is welcome in their community. Additionally, if the bad actor wants to redistribute, they have to distribute the license shaming them. Finally, if they redistribute under the more permissive license (by receiving the the permissively licensed copy from a third party), it's a grave sign that the bad actor has no interest in community norms and would open them up to public ridicule. This might have a similar community reaction as Chef reuploading the add-on deleted by the user who opposed their collaboration with ICE. Open questions: 1. Is this FSD and OSD compatible? I tend to feel it is in spirit as every user receives the software under terms that comply with both definitions. That said, the wording of annnoted OSD #5 as mentioned on the previous thread may imply otherwise. 2. Can the special permission be removed under any conditions, including when redistributed under the more permissive license? If so, can that be addressed so it can't be removed? 3. Can this be mechanism be expanded on in other dimensions and still be FOSS? If so how much would it reduce its effectiveness? As an example, could you list more general sets of bad actors like "defense contractors" or "oil companies"? I don't see why not but it might be less effective since there isn't a single or small number of actors to shame. 4. What effect does this have on copyleft as a concept? To date, one use case of strong copyleft is corporate dual licensing, primarily for encouraging purchase of a copy under a proprietary license. As someone who values very strong copyleft, it would be worrisome to see strong copyleft further viewed as a punishment. On the other hand, I wouldn't encourage communities to use this when they want their license to be a strong copy left; if this tactic was vetted and "approved", then, given the moral urgency of the moment, I'd encourage them to use this when they want their license to be as permissive as the listed exception but want to express righteous indignation at those who violate community norms. 5. What is the risk to marginalized people and is it worth that risk? Similar to the Persona non Grata Preamble, publicizing the idea of listing bad actors means that its more likely that it could be used to harass or harm marginalized people. Before using this tactic, it should be well vetted by a globally diverse set of people from marginalized communities. -- Eric Schultz, Developer and FOSS Advocate wwahammy.com e...@wwahammy.com @wwahammy Pronouns: He/his/him
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
