Re: [License-discuss] documentation on un-enforceability of ethical licenses? (was Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative

On 7/2/24 01:45, Pamela Chestek wrote: Instead I think it's a practical problem. Licenses are not self-enforcing, someone has to bring a legal claim for enforcement. Only the licensor can enforce the contract (unless the license has a third party beneficiary, in which case the third party can

Re: [License-discuss] documentation on un-enforceability of ethical licenses? (was Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative

On 6/2/24 23:39, Stefano Maffulli wrote: Question for the wider group: Can you point me to a document (legal or otherwise) that argues the unenforceability of ethical clauses, like these ones? Not on unenforceability but on harm to F/OSS communities, I spoke on The critical importance of

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

On 2/6/24 02:01, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote: I agree with Brian. Of late OSI has made progress in having other things that make them meaningful than the approval process. Dealing with legislation and case law is important. pleasing the legal neophyte who thinks they've invented

Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue 3

On 2/5/24 08:38, Daniel Mihai wrote: AI-OAL Section 4 4. Environmental Responsibility Clause You must use The Product in a way that positively contributes to environmental conservation and sustainability. You shall not use The Product in any way that significantly harms the environment, as

Re: [License-discuss] documentation on un-enforceability of ethical licenses? (was Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative

On 2/6/2024 7:39 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: Question for the wider group: Can you point me to a document (legal or otherwise) that argues the unenforceability of ethical clauses, like these ones? I don't know that there is such a document, at least not under US law. We take a very liberal

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

Bruce, The OSI treats all license submitters with dignity and respect, no matter how frivolous their licenses might be. That's what we did with the anonymous person who submitted the Vaccine License, one who took great pains to make it look like a legitimately held belief, including creating

Re: [License-discuss] documentation on un-enforceability of ethical licenses? (was Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative

> On Feb 6, 2024, at 10:39 AM, Stefano Maffulli wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:18 PM Daniel Mihai > wrote: >> We are happy to remove the restriction of use for positive ecological >> conservation and sustainability, yet we are not happy to allow usage of

[License-discuss] documentation on un-enforceability of ethical licenses? (was Re: License Review Request - Anu Initiative

On Tue, Feb 6, 2024 at 4:18 PM Daniel Mihai wrote: > We are happy to remove the restriction of use for positive ecological > conservation and sustainability, yet we are not happy to allow usage of the > product for means that significantly harms the environment - as this would > go against our

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

I agree with Brian. Of late OSI has made progress in having other things that make them meaningful than the approval process. Dealing with legislation and case law is important. pleasing the legal neophyte who thinks they've invented better licensing is not. On Tue, Feb 6, 2024, 09:24 Brian

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

P.S. You must agree: a vaccine license in 2019 was prescient. On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 18:46 Bruce Perens wrote: > Well that joke backfired on me, didn't it? I made a charicture of > "ethical" licenses, and ended up withdrawing it because I was afraid they'd > actually approve it! It was meant to

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

Well that joke backfired on me, didn't it? I made a charicture of "ethical" licenses, and ended up withdrawing it because I was afraid they'd actually approve it! It was meant to be like a "moot bill". A lot of people did not then, and still do not get the concept. Silly me for expecting them to.

Re: [License-discuss] License-discuss Digest, Vol 133, Issue 3

Hello and thanks for your reply, ODS 6 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

It is a crayon license, and the author points out its whimsical nature while wishfully saying the terms bind anyway. There is no point in passing it on for disapproval or doing anything else to take it seriously. Just politely tell the author there isn't a chance. IMO if you want to help the open

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

Note that he sent his review request to license-discuss. On Mon, Feb 5, 2024, 15:45 McCoy Smith wrote: > Daniel: > > In order to have a license reviewed, you need to provide the assurances > and information about the license ( > https://opensource.org/licenses/review-process/) including that it

Re: [License-discuss] License Review Request - Anu Initiative

While I also agree that there's been nothing usefully new here in the last few years, if one discontinues the process of approving new licenses, then you shift the meaning of OSI from an organization that defends the integrity of the OSD, to one that merely defends a set of stone tablets,