On 3/6/20 4:47 PM, Coraline Ada Ehmke wrote:
On Mar 6, 2020, at 11:04 AM, Russell Nelson <nel...@crynwr.com> wrote:
I do NOT like the idea of ethical open source. It completely turns the idea of "forking
without permission" into "you can only run this software if I think you are a good
person.”
I see statements like this being thrown around so often, and I’m really sick of
it being repeated with exactly ZERO backing evidence.
Well, then, let's look at the terms of the ESD (even though it's
off-topic for license-discuss). It controls not licenses, but the
software itself. This matters very much. Once we say that a license is
OSD-compliant, anybody can distribute software under that license and
say that it's open source. If they don't comply with the terms of the
license, the copyright holder has grounds for a copyright infringement suit.
The ESD applies to software, not to licenses. If somebody uses
ESD-licensed software, they're NOT free and clear. They could get into
legal or social trouble down the road.
For example, ESD#1 implies that software which is inheritive cannot be
combined with software that is not. So the GPL is out, completely. For
example, ESD#2 could be infringed by a developer who rejects a patch
("welcoming of public contributions"). Their decision may be grounds to
remove ESD compliance from their software depending on someone's
opinion, including some third party. ESD#3 says that the code of conduct
must be consistently and fairly enforced. Who decides this? You? Me? The
Ethical Source Movement board of directors? Or some other committee? ESD
#4 could be infringed by a piece of software which fails to include
sufficient prohibitions. ESD #5 seriously? You're permitting proprietary
software. Or, if you aren't, then it's just virtue signalling,
attempting to attract developers who want to beg for money. ESD #6
doesn't define what is a "widely interoperable open format". I can open
Microsoft Word files using Open Office. Does means it complies with ESD
#6? Does Word's XML file format make it comply? You can't argue that XML
is NOT a "widely interoperable open format".
The whole thing reeks of arbitrary judgements.
I hope this is adequate backing evidence.
_______________________________________________
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
