3 ms·

> (which is not even OSS if you can ban people you don't like) You're hallucinating that part of OSS. There's no requirement in any open-source software to in

> (which is not even OSS if you can ban people you don't like) You're hallucinating that part of OSS. There's no requirement in any open-source software to interact with people you'd rather not interact with, for whatever reason you have, and there are extremely low limits to your continuing obligations for past interactions if you decide to "ban" them. (I'm using my non-lawyer understanding/memory on OSI-approved licenses, but I'd appreciate counter-examples to what I'm saying here if anyone knows of them.)

pabs3 2y ago
The Open Source Definition is only about copyright licensing, but it does mention "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups". https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Technically you can of course discriminate in other ways and remain Open Source, like banning folks from downloading, or interacting with your bug tracker etc. Often those bans will be ineffective, for eg when there are multiple download mirrors that don't have the same bans as you, or people use Tor etc. Some of these sorts of bans don't seem to be in the spirit of the FLOSS movement though.
- me-vs-cat 2y ago
  > ...like banning folks from downloading, or interacting with your bug tracker etc. Often those bans will be ineffective [including because the folks you banned can interact with an intermediary] You miss the point. I'm not sure if this will help, but I'll see if I can expand and reiterate. Seeing this whole reply now, I apologize for the length. You might go back up to the parent comment and re-read what I was addressing: the claim that one's ability to "ban" is "not even OSS". Regarding ban evasion through Tor or similar, that plays into whether a ban is technologically feasible -- rather than about ability and freedom to make your choice in the first place -- and I won't address it further here. If I don't want to interact with someone, I make that choice for myself. No open source license prevents me from making and implementing my choice for myself. If I previously chose to interact with someone and am now no longer willing to do so, then open source licenses have either no continuing obligations (eg BSD) or extremely low continuing obligations (eg GPL). (If someone knows of a license that meets the Open Source Definition, to use a handy threshold, which does in fact require me to interact when I would prefer not to, then I would appreciate the counter-example. In fact, when I wrote "low" in my parent comment, I was thinking specifically and only about the GPL's requirement to provide source code for 3 years after interacting with a party, so I'd appreciate any counter-example that requires more than that.) If others choose to interact with that same someone, then that is their choice, not mine. I am not a party to their interaction with that same someone. I may even choose to now include them in the list of people with whom I will no longer interact -- but that only goes forwards and does not change prior interactions -- and whether I even desire to make that choice is now getting far away from the topic of ability to make that choice. My choices not affecting other people is very much in the spirit of open source and FLOSS, as I understand them. The part that you quoted from the Open Source Definition is that the license cannot have discrimination terms. That has nothing to do with whether I choose to interact with anyone else on any basis that I choose, regardless of whether that basis is socially acceptable or not. What that OSD requirement does do, however, is prevent my interaction choices from affecting others when I use an open source license. You might imagine a hypothetical license that discriminates against particular nationalities or industries, and contrast that with someone who uses open source licenses while still refusing to interact with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or North Korea, to use two current, real-world examples.
  - pabs3 2y ago
    You are entirely correct. Forcing interactions with additional parties you aren't already interacting with is usually considered a non-free license condition. For example Debian has the dissident and desert island tests for this reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...

pabs3 2y ago

The Open Source Definition is only about copyright licensing, but it does mention "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups". https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Technically you can of course discriminate in other ways and remain Open Source, like banning folks from downloading, or interacting with your bug tracker etc. Often those bans will be ineffective, for eg when there are multiple download mirrors that don't have the same bans as you, or people use Tor etc. Some of these sorts of bans don't seem to be in the spirit of the FLOSS movement though.

me-vs-cat 2y ago
> ...like banning folks from downloading, or interacting with your bug tracker etc. Often those bans will be ineffective [including because the folks you banned can interact with an intermediary] You miss the point. I'm not sure if this will help, but I'll see if I can expand and reiterate. Seeing this whole reply now, I apologize for the length. You might go back up to the parent comment and re-read what I was addressing: the claim that one's ability to "ban" is "not even OSS". Regarding ban evasion through Tor or similar, that plays into whether a ban is technologically feasible -- rather than about ability and freedom to make your choice in the first place -- and I won't address it further here. If I don't want to interact with someone, I make that choice for myself. No open source license prevents me from making and implementing my choice for myself. If I previously chose to interact with someone and am now no longer willing to do so, then open source licenses have either no continuing obligations (eg BSD) or extremely low continuing obligations (eg GPL). (If someone knows of a license that meets the Open Source Definition, to use a handy threshold, which does in fact require me to interact when I would prefer not to, then I would appreciate the counter-example. In fact, when I wrote "low" in my parent comment, I was thinking specifically and only about the GPL's requirement to provide source code for 3 years after interacting with a party, so I'd appreciate any counter-example that requires more than that.) If others choose to interact with that same someone, then that is their choice, not mine. I am not a party to their interaction with that same someone. I may even choose to now include them in the list of people with whom I will no longer interact -- but that only goes forwards and does not change prior interactions -- and whether I even desire to make that choice is now getting far away from the topic of ability to make that choice. My choices not affecting other people is very much in the spirit of open source and FLOSS, as I understand them. The part that you quoted from the Open Source Definition is that the license cannot have discrimination terms. That has nothing to do with whether I choose to interact with anyone else on any basis that I choose, regardless of whether that basis is socially acceptable or not. What that OSD requirement does do, however, is prevent my interaction choices from affecting others when I use an open source license. You might imagine a hypothetical license that discriminates against particular nationalities or industries, and contrast that with someone who uses open source licenses while still refusing to interact with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or North Korea, to use two current, real-world examples.
- pabs3 2y ago
  You are entirely correct. Forcing interactions with additional parties you aren't already interacting with is usually considered a non-free license condition. For example Debian has the dissident and desert island tests for this reason. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines#debian-legal_tests_for_DFSG_compliance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...