Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

2015-10-13 Thread Riley Baird 
> IMHO it is a DFSG-compatible license because added clause is not a 
> restriction for field of endeavour but a termination clause similar to GPL 
> ones except that is is explicitly added to the license in order to blacklist 
> a known offender.

Are you sure that Adarsh Mehta is a known offender? From what I can
tell, Adarsh Mehta and Martin Denizet co-founded TESTTailor.[1]
Presumably something happened between them.

Because of this, I don't think that it is necessary to consider
the question of known offenders unless it can be proven that
Adarsh Mehta is one.

[1] www.unitednetworker.com/testtailor-crowdtesting-plattform/


pgp7r_TrsDcMx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

2015-10-13 Thread Dmitry Smirnov 
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 09:10:10 Florian Weimer wrote:
> The restriction you cited violates DFSG §5 (“No Discrimination Against
> Persons or Groups”).

Well yes, but then how GPL termination clause is not a violation?

Consider hypothetical situation when a known offender of the license have it 
revoked as per GPL-3 §8 or any other clause of the any other license. (For 
Expat an obvious violation would be removing copyright and/or notice).

Listing known offenders in addition to the text of the license wouldn't be 
violation of DFSG §5, right?

Discrimination is not the same as Termination so I wonder if it is possible 
to list license revocations in a DFSG-compliant manner...

-- 
Best wishes,
 Dmitry Smirnov.



signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

2015-10-13 Thread Paul Tagliamonte 
This is not a DFSG free license, and it will be rejected from NEW if it's
sent there :)

Cheers,
  Paul

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 2:54 AM, Dmitry Smirnov  wrote:

> Hi everyone,
>
> I'm seeking second opinion regarding mutation of the Expat license that can
> be found in [1]. In particular, author added the following clause:
>
> The Software shall not be used nor made available to TESTTailor or any
> individual or organization related or operated by Adarsh Mehta from
> Germany; some people just don't deserve free work to be made available
> to them.
>
> Do we consider this as DFSG compatible license?
>
> IMHO it is a DFSG-compatible license because added clause is not a
> restriction for field of endeavour but a termination clause similar to GPL
> ones except that is is explicitly added to the license in order to
> blacklist
> a known offender.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks.
>
> [1]: https://github.com/martin-denizet/redmine_login_audit#license
>
> --
> Cheers,
>  Dmitry Smirnov.
>
> ---
>
> The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate,
> contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and
> unrealistic. Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the
> discomfort of thought.
> -- John F Kennedy
>



-- 
All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors.

#define sizeof(x) rand()
:wq

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

2015-10-13 Thread MJ Ray 
On 10/13/15 08:50, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 09:10:10 Florian Weimer wrote:
>> The restriction you cited violates DFSG §5 (“No Discrimination Against
>> Persons or Groups”).
> 
> Well yes, but then how GPL termination clause is not a violation?

Because it is a clause explaining what happens if someone behaves in a
way which isn't allowed under most copyright laws anyway and mainly sets
out how that person can gain a new licence by ceasing violation.

> Listing known offenders in addition to the text of the license wouldn't be 
> violation of DFSG §5, right?

Yes, it probably would - how would the listed people ever gain a new
valid licence?

Hope that explains,
-- 
MJ Ray (slef), member of www.software.coop, a for-more-than-profit co-op
http://people.debian.org/~mjr/legal/
In My Opinion Only: see http://mjr.towers.org.uk/email.html

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

2015-10-13 Thread Dmitry Smirnov 
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 12:50:55 MJ Ray wrote:
> On 10/13/15 08:50, Dmitry Smirnov wrote:
> > Listing known offenders in addition to the text of the license wouldn't
> > be violation of DFSG §5, right?
> 
> Yes, it probably would - how would the listed people ever gain a new
> valid licence?

I think it is entirely different question how they can get a new license.
Forgiveness of the license is not a DFSG criteria. But let's entertain this 
idea. How about time period? What if license revoked for 20 years and 
offenders listed with date after which they can use the software again?

-- 
Cheers,
 Dmitry Smirnov.


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

2015-10-13 Thread Dmitry Smirnov 
On Tuesday 13 October 2015 09:31:03 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> This is not a DFSG free license, and it will be rejected from NEW if it's
> sent there :)

Understood, thanks. But my question really is whether it can be re-phrased to 
blacklist/mention known offender(s) in a DFSG-compatible manner and how... 

-- 
Regards,
 Dmitry Smirnov.

---

Truth — Something somehow discreditable to someone.
-- H. L. Mencken, 1949


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

2015-10-13 Thread Paul Tagliamonte 
It can not.

Thanks,
  Paul

On Tue, Oct 13, 2015 at 10:16 AM, Dmitry Smirnov  wrote:

> On Tuesday 13 October 2015 09:31:03 Paul Tagliamonte wrote:
> > This is not a DFSG free license, and it will be rejected from NEW if it's
> > sent there :)
>
> Understood, thanks. But my question really is whether it can be re-phrased
> to
> blacklist/mention known offender(s) in a DFSG-compatible manner and how...
>
> --
> Regards,
>  Dmitry Smirnov.
>
> ---
>
> Truth — Something somehow discreditable to someone.
> -- H. L. Mencken, 1949
>



-- 
All programmers are playwrights, and all computers are lousy actors.

#define sizeof(x) rand()
:wq

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

2015-10-13 Thread Ben Finney 
Dmitry Smirnov  writes:

> But my question really is whether it can be re-phrased to
> blacklist/mention known offender(s) in a DFSG-compatible manner and
> how...

The goal of excluding specific people, or groups of people, is not
compatible with software freedom. It's also not compatible with the
DFSG. Such a goal cannot be met in a free software license.

So, the resolution would entail getting at *why* They want to exclude
certain people, and see whether that underlying goal can be met.

The way the existing wording seems to spitefully target named
individuals does not make me hopeful of that, but at least there's a
chance something can be found.

-- 
 \   “When I get new information, I change my position. What, sir, |
  `\ do you do with new information?” —John Maynard Keynes |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney

Re: Expat + exception = DFSG-compatible?

2015-10-13 Thread Ángel González 

El 13/10/15 21:53, Ben Finney escribió:

Dmitry Smirnov  writes:


But my question really is whether it can be re-phrased to
blacklist/mention known offender(s) in a DFSG-compatible manner and
how...

The goal of excluding specific people, or groups of people, is not
compatible with software freedom. It's also not compatible with the
DFSG. Such a goal cannot be met in a free software license.

So, the resolution would entail getting at *why* They want to exclude
certain people, and see whether that underlying goal can be met.

That's the real point.

I guess something similar to what you wanted could be achieved by a 
wording like:
«This license does not provide any new rights to LitWare Inc. over the 
code for which they were terminated pursuing GPL §8 after they failed to 
comply with the license terms after being repeatedly notified since 2005.»


which is quite different than:
«The company Coho Winery cannot use this work, since when the founder 
filed for divorce [from me], it said very nasty things»

or
«Blue Yonder Airlines is not allowed to use this software, since planes 
are dangerous and nobody should operate them»



"some people just don't deserve free work to be made available to them." 
could mean anything.