3 ms·

I note that this definitely wouldn't comply with the FSD/OSD/DFSG, because it means you are forcing people to communicate source to people they aren't communica

by pabs3 3y ago

I note that this definitely wouldn't comply with the FSD/OSD/DFSG, because it means you are forcing people to communicate source to people they aren't communicating with, for whatever reason; such as because they are a dissident, or on a desert island, or in a domestic violence situation, or in a warzone etc. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest https://wiki.debian.org/DissidentTest https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest https://wiki.debian.org/DesertIslandTest https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html https://people.debian.org/~bap/dfsg-faq.html

andybak 3y ago
From the README: ## What about the Debian "Political Dissident" test? See the above. Pretty much the same thing. Again, if I can find some wording to exempt individuals from the distribution requirement who would otherwise be put at clear risk to their human rights by state or corporate actors, then I'll add such wording.
- pabs3 3y ago
  That doesn't address the problem with the concept.
  - andybak 3y ago
    No but your comment didn't mention that the topic had been acknowledged - so it adds useful context that was missing.
LexiMax 3y ago
This license seems to specifically take aim at RHEL's new source distribution policy. Are we as a community okay with allowing this to happen, because Red Hat is adhering to the letter of the GPL and the FSD/OSD/DFSG? Are those definitions unassailable truisms that are not up for debate? Are the authors arguments in favor of his own license not worth rebutting directly on the merits?
- pabs3 3y ago
  Probably this license is best put under another definition. I expect the Ethical Source folks would be willing to define this license as ethical. https://ethicalsource.dev/ https://ethicalsource.dev/

by pabs3 3y ago

andybak 3y ago

From the README: ## What about the Debian "Political Dissident" test? See the above. Pretty much the same thing. Again, if I can find some wording to exempt individuals from the distribution requirement who would otherwise be put at clear risk to their human rights by state or corporate actors, then I'll add such wording.

pabs3 3y ago
That doesn't address the problem with the concept.
- andybak 3y ago
  No but your comment didn't mention that the topic had been acknowledged - so it adds useful context that was missing.

LexiMax 3y ago

This license seems to specifically take aim at RHEL's new source distribution policy. Are we as a community okay with allowing this to happen, because Red Hat is adhering to the letter of the GPL and the FSD/OSD/DFSG? Are those definitions unassailable truisms that are not up for debate? Are the authors arguments in favor of his own license not worth rebutting directly on the merits?

pabs3 3y ago
Probably this license is best put under another definition. I expect the Ethical Source folks would be willing to define this license as ethical. https://ethicalsource.dev/ https://ethicalsource.dev/