Josh,
Well, it seems to me that the organization is rather enthusiastically headed toward accepting a license that isn't freedom respecting. Fine, do it without me, please. I asked Patrick to cancel my membership, and I would have unsubscribed from OSI lists, including this one, if your server was working. I own an interest in 10 Open Source companies and manage a 50 Million dollar portfolio investing in them. That will keep me involved enough.
Thanks
Bruce
On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 9:18 PM Joshua R. Simmons < josh.simmons at opensource.org> wrote:
> That's out of line, Bruce. I'm not sure where this FUD is coming from, but > it's inappropriate. > > Regardless of my own views, I quite value Bradley's contribution, as well > as Van's engaging the process and responding to criticism in good faith. > > I've been following the discussions closely and, frankly, it seems a > decent model of critical civil discourse. Let's keep it that way. > > (Apologies for the re-send, had to square away some issues with my mailing > list membership.) > > Josh Simmons, VP at Open Source Initiative (Tax ID 91-2037395) > @joshsimmons <http://twitter.com/joshsimmons> | josh at opensource.org | 1-707-600-6098 > | bluesomewhere on Freenode > ad astra per aspera ðŸš⬠> > > On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 8:53 PM Bruce Perens via License-review < > license-review at lists.opensource.org> wrote: > >> Don't waste your time, Bradley. They were told not to listen to you, >> either. >> >> On Wed, Jan 1, 2020 at 6:29 PM Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at ebb.org> wrote: >> >>> I can't find an example when OSI approved a novel copyleft license that >>> hadn't yet been used in practice and therefore had no track record of use >>> for any FOSS project. It was once somewhat common for OSI to approve >>> licenses that were used by only one entity, and most of those licenses >>> were >>> never used beyond the one project, and even most of those entities have >>> deprecated those by now. (OSI also made a decision to cease considering >>> such single-use licenses.) Rapid acceptance of a novel licenses, so far >>> unused in practice, causes confusion in the FOSS community. >>> >>> Folks have shouted down Bruce as he wonders how Van's license will be >>> used >>> in practice. I think Bruce has made a useful point on this thread: as a >>> general matter, it's relevant that we consider how the license impacts >>> users' *and* software publishers' software freedoms in *practice*, not >>> merely *in theory*. >>> >>> In that regard, I'd like to know if the project that plans to use this >>> license will be inbound=outbound (i.e., is the entity that's promulgating >>> this new license willing to bound themselves by the license terms)? Van, >>> could you tell us, on behalf of your client (who appears to be the only >>> potential licensor interested in this license), what their contribution >>> plans are regarding this license? Are they planning to accept >>> contributions >>> under this license, and thus be bound by it for their FOSS projects? >>> If not, why not? >>> -- >>> >>> Bradley M. Kuhn - he/him >>> >>> Pls. support the charity where I work, Software Freedom Conservancy: >>> https://sfconservancy.org/supporter/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> License-review mailing list >>> License-review at lists.opensource.org >>> >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org >>> >> >> >> -- >> Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital. >> _______________________________________________ >> License-review mailing list >> License-review at lists.opensource.org >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org >> > -- Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.