From love.nystrom at gmail.com  Fri Jun  8 06:32:49 2012
From: love.nystrom at gmail.com (Love Nystrom)
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 13:32:49 +0700
Subject: [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE
	LICENSE
Message-ID: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com>

Best Colleagues,

I submit a request for OSI review and approval of this "No Nonsense Open 
Source License".

This license is a direct derivative of the BSD 3-clause license, with 
the addition
of a 4th clause specifically prohibiting a 3rd party to charge for the 
original work.

There is good reason for such a clause, in light of some horrific 
examples seen
recently in the Open Source software community, where a 3d party have 
charged
100s of dollars for open source software, with little or no derivative 
efforts of their own.

I feel the BSD license is "short, sweet, and to the point", and 
therefore a good starting point,
but none of the licenses I've reviewed address the issue of 3rd parties 
extracting economic profit
from work that's been freely given by it's original author(s). Quite 
contrary, all the existing licenses
seem to explicitly or implicitly permit 3rd parties to sell work not of 
their own making.
I believe this to be very wrong.

The new 4th clause permits a 3rd party to charge for their own efforts 
only.

That is, they may e.g. charge proportionally to the ratio of their own 
work to the extent of
the original work, for their own derivative work, when they include the 
original work in their own,
or, extract a reasonable fee for media and shipping if they send 
physical copies to a 3rd party, & c..,
but they may not charge for the original work itself without written 
permission from the original author(s).

The BSD license has also been re-phrased slightly, replacing "software" 
with the more generic "work",
in an attempt to make it applicable to a wider audience of authors.
The 3rd clause, governing endorsement, may be optional, at the 
discretion of the author(s),
as with the current BSD license.

It is my hope that the review process can actually make the text of the 
4th clause a bit shorter,
while still retaining the clarity of intent.

Best Regards
     B.O.Love Nystrom
     Senior software engineer
     Independent Software Developers

The preliminary text of the license template follows, expecting the 
following substitutions:

<OWNER> = Identification of the author(s)/owner(s)
<ORGANIZATION> = His/her/their organization, if applicable
<YEAR> = Release year of the work

[Begin License Template]

NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE

Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
All rights reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without 
modification,
are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:

(*) Redistributions of source work must retain the above copyright notice,
     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

(*) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 
notice,
     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the 
documentation
     and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

(*) Neither the name of <OWNER/ORGANIZATION> nor the names of it's 
contributors
     may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this work
     without specific prior written permission.

(*) You may not demand payment for this work, except for Your own efforts.
     That is, You may e.g. charge for Your own efforts if You include this
     work in derivative works of Your own, or You may extract a reasonable
     charge for the distribution media and mailing cost if You send a disk
     containing the work to a 3rd party, but You may not charge for the
     work itself without written permission from the original author(s).
     The original author(s) of this work believes it very wrong if a 3rd 
party
     demands payment for work that he/she/they have given away for free.

DISCLAIMER:

THIS WORK IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
ARE DISCLAIMED.

IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR 
SERVICES;
LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
THIS WORK, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

[End of License Template]

From kfogel at red-bean.com  Fri Jun  8 15:03:21 2012
From: kfogel at red-bean.com (Karl Fogel)
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:03:21 -0500
Subject: [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN
	SOURCE LICENSE
In-Reply-To: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com> (Love Nystrom's message of "Fri, 08
	Jun 2012 13:32:49 +0700")
References: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <87ehpp7sna.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>

Love Nystrom <love.nystrom at gmail.com> writes:
>I submit a request for OSI review and approval of this "No Nonsense
>Open Source License".
>
>This license is a direct derivative of the BSD 3-clause license, with
>the addition of a 4th clause specifically prohibiting a 3rd party to
>charge for the original work.

Such a clause makes the license non-open-source, and violates at least clause 6
("No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor") of the Open Source
Definition (http://opensource.org/docs/osd).

>There is good reason for such a clause, in light of some horrific
>examples seen recently in the Open Source software community, where a
>3d party have charged 100s of dollars for open source software, with
>little or no derivative efforts of their own.

Open source does not (and can not) prohibit undeserved commercial gain.

As long as the terms of the original software's license are complied
with, including any attribution requirements and license notice
requirements, people are free to charge whatever unjustified amount they
wish for providing a copy of the software.  If they can find customers
willing to pay that amount, that's between them and the customer.

>I feel the BSD license is "short, sweet, and to the point", and
>therefore a good starting point,
>but none of the licenses I've reviewed address the issue of 3rd
>parties extracting economic profit
>from work that's been freely given by it's original author(s). 

In open source, people are allowed to extract unearned profit, so long
as they do not interfere with others' freedoms in ways that violate the
open source license.

>The new 4th clause permits a 3rd party to charge for their own efforts
>only.

That is what people are doing already -- they are charging for providing
a copy.  Charging an unreasonable amount, but they wouldn't be the first
merchant to take advantage of a customer's ignorance.

Open source does not remove all injustice from the world.  It merely
provides a framework in which people can reliably exercise a certian set
of freedoms, if they choose to.

-Karl

>That is, they may e.g. charge proportionally to the ratio of their own
>work to the extent of
>the original work, for their own derivative work, when they include
>the original work in their own,
>or, extract a reasonable fee for media and shipping if they send
>physical copies to a 3rd party, & c..,
>but they may not charge for the original work itself without written
>permission from the original author(s).
>
>The BSD license has also been re-phrased slightly, replacing
>"software" with the more generic "work",
>in an attempt to make it applicable to a wider audience of authors.
>The 3rd clause, governing endorsement, may be optional, at the
>discretion of the author(s),
>as with the current BSD license.
>
>It is my hope that the review process can actually make the text of
>the 4th clause a bit shorter,
>while still retaining the clarity of intent.
>
>Best Regards
>    B.O.Love Nystrom
>    Senior software engineer
>    Independent Software Developers
>
>The preliminary text of the license template follows, expecting the
>following substitutions:
>
><OWNER> = Identification of the author(s)/owner(s)
><ORGANIZATION> = His/her/their organization, if applicable
><YEAR> = Release year of the work
>
>[Begin License Template]
>
>NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE
>
>Copyright (c) <YEAR>, <OWNER>
>All rights reserved.
>
>Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>modification,
>are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>
>(*) Redistributions of source work must retain the above copyright notice,
>    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
>(*) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>notice,
>    this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>documentation
>    and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
>(*) Neither the name of <OWNER/ORGANIZATION> nor the names of it's
>contributors
>    may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this work
>    without specific prior written permission.
>
>(*) You may not demand payment for this work, except for Your own efforts.
>    That is, You may e.g. charge for Your own efforts if You include this
>    work in derivative works of Your own, or You may extract a reasonable
>    charge for the distribution media and mailing cost if You send a disk
>    containing the work to a 3rd party, but You may not charge for the
>    work itself without written permission from the original author(s).
>    The original author(s) of this work believes it very wrong if a
>3rd party
>    demands payment for work that he/she/they have given away for free.
>
>DISCLAIMER:
>
>THIS WORK IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
>AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
>IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
>ARE DISCLAIMED.
>
>IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
>(INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
>SERVICES;
>LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
>ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>(INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
>THIS WORK, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
>[End of License Template]
>_______________________________________________
>License-review mailing list
>License-review at opensource.org
>http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review

From tg at mirbsd.de  Fri Jun  8 15:01:52 2012
From: tg at mirbsd.de (Thorsten Glaser)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 15:01:52 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN
 SOURCE LICENSE
In-Reply-To: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com>
References: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1206081501220.25500@herc.mirbsd.org>

Love Nystrom dixit:

> addition
> of a 4th clause specifically prohibiting a 3rd party to charge for the original
> work.

That is not Open Source.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
13:37??Natureshadow? Deep inside, I hate mirabilos. I mean, he's a good
guy. But he's always right! In every fsckin' situation, he's right. Even
with his deeply perverted taste in software and borked ambition towards
broken OSes - in the end, he's damn right about it :(! [?] works in mksh

From love.nystrom at gmail.com  Fri Jun  8 16:15:21 2012
From: love.nystrom at gmail.com (Love Nystrom)
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 23:15:21 +0700
Subject: [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN
 SOURCE LICENSE
In-Reply-To: <87ehpp7sna.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
References: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com> <87ehpp7sna.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
Message-ID: <4FD22519.4030802@gmail.com>

On 2012-06-08 22.03, Karl Fogel wrote:
> Love Nystrom<love.nystrom at gmail.com>  writes:
>> I submit a request for OSI review and approval of this "No Nonsense
>> Open Source License".
>>
>> This license is a direct derivative of the BSD 3-clause license, with
>> the addition of a 4th clause specifically prohibiting a 3rd party to
>> charge for the original work.
> Such a clause makes the license non-open-source, and violates at least clause 6
> ("No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor") of the Open Source
> Definition (http://opensource.org/docs/osd).

Then I find the definition of Open Source to be strange indeed.
Common logic would have it that open source means you have access to the 
source,
and can make modifications to your liking if you have the capability.

If "field of endeavor" means dealing commercially in the software 
unmodified, I don't agree
that it discriminates such activity, it just means they have to 
communicate with the original
authors first (share the gain). And if they actually provide software 
binaries or modified versions
that are not available at the source, they are not dealing the original 
work, they are dealing a
value added service, which the 4th clause explicitly permits without 
undue limitation.
However, if "field of endeavor" is scr*wing some authors over, so to 
speak, I agree.

>> There is good reason for such a clause, in light of some horrific
>> examples seen recently in the Open Source software community, where a
>> 3d party have charged 100s of dollars for open source software, with
>> little or no derivative efforts of their own.
> Open source does not (and can not) prohibit undeserved commercial gain.
>
> As long as the terms of the original software's license are complied
> with, including any attribution requirements and license notice
> requirements, people are free to charge whatever unjustified amount they
> wish for providing a copy of the software.  If they can find customers
> willing to pay that amount, that's between them and the customer.

I think that's wrong!
Customers (the general public) are ignorant, and cannot be expected to know
that some software they like is available for free as Open Source.

> In open source, people are allowed to extract unearned profit, so long
> as they do not interfere with others' freedoms in ways that violate the
> open source license.

What is the reason Open Source can not try to promote decency in this 
regard ?
Why must open source imply that a 3rd party is free to extract 
undeserved gains
from work, not only software, that the original authors have provided ?

> Open source does not remove all injustice from the world.  It merely
> provides a framework in which people can reliably exercise a certian set
> of freedoms, if they choose to.

Yes, of course it does not remove all injustice, nor could it be 
expected to.
However, I'm suggesting is that it could try to promote decent behavior 
in it's particular field.
Why can't we have one more clause, that tries to promote giving the 
authors a decent share ?
The source is still available after all, and i do not agree that such a 
clause would
discriminate against any field of endeavor, unless the field of endeavor is
specifically to extract undeserved profit from the work of others.

Best Regards
// Love


>> [Begin License Template]
>>
>> NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE
>>
>> Copyright (c)<YEAR>,<OWNER>
>> All rights reserved.
>>
>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>> modification,
>> are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>
>> (*) Redistributions of source work must retain the above copyright notice,
>>     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>
>> (*) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>> notice,
>>     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>> documentation
>>     and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>
>> (*) Neither the name of<OWNER/ORGANIZATION>  nor the names of it's
>> contributors
>>     may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this work
>>     without specific prior written permission.
>>
>> (*) You may not demand payment for this work, except for Your own efforts.
>>     That is, You may e.g. charge for Your own efforts if You include this
>>     work in derivative works of Your own, or You may extract a reasonable
>>     charge for the distribution media and mailing cost if You send a disk
>>     containing the work to a 3rd party, but You may not charge for the
>>     work itself without written permission from the original author(s).
>>     The original author(s) of this work believes it very wrong if a
>> 3rd party
>>     demands payment for work that he/she/they have given away for free.
>>
>> DISCLAIMER:
>>
>> THIS WORK IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
>> AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
>> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
>> ARE DISCLAIMED.
>>
>> IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>> DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
>> (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
>> SERVICES;
>> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
>> ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>> (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
>> THIS WORK, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>>
>> [End of License Template]
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
> _______________________________________________
> License-review mailing list
> License-review at opensource.org
> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review


From tg at mirbsd.de  Fri Jun  8 17:20:15 2012
From: tg at mirbsd.de (Thorsten Glaser)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 17:20:15 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN
 SOURCE LICENSE
In-Reply-To: <4FD22519.4030802@gmail.com>
References: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com> <87ehpp7sna.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
	<4FD22519.4030802@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1206081719430.25500@herc.mirbsd.org>

Love Nystrom dixit:

> Common logic would have it that open source means you have access to the
> source,
> and can make modifications to your liking if you have the capability.

It means more than that ? for example, certain redistribution rights.

bye,
//mirabilos
-- 
I believe no one can invent an algorithm. One just happens to hit upon it
when God enlightens him. Or only God invents algorithms, we merely copy them.
If you don't believe in God, just consider God as Nature if you won't deny
existence.		-- Coywolf Qi Hunt

From love.nystrom at gmail.com  Fri Jun  8 17:28:27 2012
From: love.nystrom at gmail.com (Love Nystrom)
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2012 00:28:27 +0700
Subject: [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN
 SOURCE LICENSE
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSM.4.64L.1206081719430.25500@herc.mirbsd.org>
References: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com>
	<87ehpp7sna.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>	<4FD22519.4030802@gmail.com>
	<Pine.BSM.4.64L.1206081719430.25500@herc.mirbsd.org>
Message-ID: <4FD2363B.9000000@gmail.com>

On 2012-06-09 00.20, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
> Love Nystrom dixit:
>> Common logic would have it that open source means you have access to the
>> source,
>> and can make modifications to your liking if you have the capability.
> It means more than that ? for example, certain redistribution rights.

Yes, of course, as duly noted in my draft, but why must it imply the right
to not share the profits from selling the work someone else provided ?

Best Regards
// Love


From kfogel at red-bean.com  Fri Jun  8 17:39:51 2012
From: kfogel at red-bean.com (Karl Fogel)
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:39:51 -0500
Subject: [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN
	SOURCE LICENSE
In-Reply-To: <4FD22519.4030802@gmail.com> (Love Nystrom's message of "Fri, 08
	Jun 2012 23:15:21 +0700")
References: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com> <87ehpp7sna.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
	<4FD22519.4030802@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <877gvh66u0.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>

IMHO this discussion is not on-topic for this list anymore.  The
definition of "open source" has been well-established for over a decade.
The phrase apparently did not mean exactly what you expected it to mean,
but now that's been cleared up.  Believe me, you'll get the same answer
from anyone on this list.

Best,
-K

Love Nystrom <love.nystrom at gmail.com> writes:
>On 2012-06-08 22.03, Karl Fogel wrote:
>> Love Nystrom<love.nystrom at gmail.com>  writes:
>>> I submit a request for OSI review and approval of this "No Nonsense
>>> Open Source License".
>>>
>>> This license is a direct derivative of the BSD 3-clause license, with
>>> the addition of a 4th clause specifically prohibiting a 3rd party to
>>> charge for the original work.
>> Such a clause makes the license non-open-source, and violates at
>> least clause 6
>> ("No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor") of the Open Source
>> Definition (http://opensource.org/docs/osd).
>
>Then I find the definition of Open Source to be strange indeed.
>Common logic would have it that open source means you have access to
>the source,
>and can make modifications to your liking if you have the capability.
>
>If "field of endeavor" means dealing commercially in the software
>unmodified, I don't agree
>that it discriminates such activity, it just means they have to
>communicate with the original
>authors first (share the gain). And if they actually provide software
>binaries or modified versions
>that are not available at the source, they are not dealing the
>original work, they are dealing a
>value added service, which the 4th clause explicitly permits without
>undue limitation.
>However, if "field of endeavor" is scr*wing some authors over, so to
>speak, I agree.
>
>>> There is good reason for such a clause, in light of some horrific
>>> examples seen recently in the Open Source software community, where a
>>> 3d party have charged 100s of dollars for open source software, with
>>> little or no derivative efforts of their own.
>> Open source does not (and can not) prohibit undeserved commercial gain.
>>
>> As long as the terms of the original software's license are complied
>> with, including any attribution requirements and license notice
>> requirements, people are free to charge whatever unjustified amount they
>> wish for providing a copy of the software.  If they can find customers
>> willing to pay that amount, that's between them and the customer.
>
>I think that's wrong!
>Customers (the general public) are ignorant, and cannot be expected to know
>that some software they like is available for free as Open Source.
>
>> In open source, people are allowed to extract unearned profit, so long
>> as they do not interfere with others' freedoms in ways that violate the
>> open source license.
>
>What is the reason Open Source can not try to promote decency in this
>regard ?
>Why must open source imply that a 3rd party is free to extract
>undeserved gains
>from work, not only software, that the original authors have provided ?
>
>> Open source does not remove all injustice from the world.  It merely
>> provides a framework in which people can reliably exercise a certian set
>> of freedoms, if they choose to.
>
>Yes, of course it does not remove all injustice, nor could it be
>expected to.
>However, I'm suggesting is that it could try to promote decent
>behavior in it's particular field.
>Why can't we have one more clause, that tries to promote giving the
>authors a decent share ?
>The source is still available after all, and i do not agree that such
>a clause would
>discriminate against any field of endeavor, unless the field of endeavor is
>specifically to extract undeserved profit from the work of others.
>
>Best Regards
>// Love
>
>
>>> [Begin License Template]
>>>
>>> NO NONSENSE OPEN SOURCE LICENSE
>>>
>>> Copyright (c)<YEAR>,<OWNER>
>>> All rights reserved.
>>>
>>> Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without
>>> modification,
>>> are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
>>>
>>> (*) Redistributions of source work must retain the above copyright notice,
>>>     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>>>
>>> (*) Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
>>> notice,
>>>     this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
>>> documentation
>>>     and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>>>
>>> (*) Neither the name of<OWNER/ORGANIZATION>  nor the names of it's
>>> contributors
>>>     may be used to endorse or promote products derived from this work
>>>     without specific prior written permission.
>>>
>>> (*) You may not demand payment for this work, except for Your own efforts.
>>>     That is, You may e.g. charge for Your own efforts if You include this
>>>     work in derivative works of Your own, or You may extract a reasonable
>>>     charge for the distribution media and mailing cost if You send a disk
>>>     containing the work to a 3rd party, but You may not charge for the
>>>     work itself without written permission from the original author(s).
>>>     The original author(s) of this work believes it very wrong if a
>>> 3rd party
>>>     demands payment for work that he/she/they have given away for free.
>>>
>>> DISCLAIMER:
>>>
>>> THIS WORK IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS"
>>> AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE
>>> IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE
>>> ARE DISCLAIMED.
>>>
>>> IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY
>>> DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES
>>> (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR
>>> SERVICES;
>>> LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER CAUSED AND
>>> ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, OR TORT
>>> (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE OF
>>> THIS WORK, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>>>
>>> [End of License Template]
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> License-review mailing list
>>> License-review at opensource.org
>>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-review mailing list
>> License-review at opensource.org
>> http://projects.opensource.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/license-review

From bruce at perens.com  Fri Jun  8 17:58:43 2012
From: bruce at perens.com (Bruce Perens)
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 10:58:43 -0700
Subject: [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN
 SOURCE LICENSE
In-Reply-To: <877gvh66u0.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
References: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com> <87ehpp7sna.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
	<4FD22519.4030802@gmail.com> <877gvh66u0.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
Message-ID: <4FD23D53.8040805@perens.com>

Hello Love Nystrom,

A long time ago, while working for the Debian project, I set the rules 
that are now called the Open Source Definition. There were a number of 
difficult choices. For example, should Open Source licenses allow use of 
the software for oppression of people?

One of the examples at the time was the Berkeley SPICE license. This 
electrical engineering software included a prohibition, in its license, 
on use by the police of South Africa. At the time the license was 
written, South Africa was under Apartheid and there was terrible 
oppression of the Black population by the police. But Apartheid ended, 
and the license continued to include that prohibition for many years 
after it was no longer justified.

I took from this example the lesson that you can't micromanage that only 
good is done with your license.

     Thanks

     Bruce
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: bruce.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 265 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/attachments/20120608/8305e5bc/attachment.vcf>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4447 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <http://projects.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review/attachments/20120608/8305e5bc/attachment.bin>

From rick at linuxmafia.com  Fri Jun  8 18:25:29 2012
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:25:29 -0700
Subject: [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN
 SOURCE LICENSE
In-Reply-To: <87ehpp7sna.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
References: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com>
 <87ehpp7sna.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
Message-ID: <20120608182529.GH5191@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Karl Fogel (kfogel at red-bean.com):

> Open source does not remove all injustice from the world.  It merely
> provides a framework in which people can reliably exercise a certian set
> of freedoms, if they choose to.

Moreover, anyone who dislikes one distributor's outrageous pricing to
obtain a code instance is welcome to seek out a different distributor.
And then to further redistribute if the recipient so wishes.  With or
without outrageous pricing.  

In the general case, nothing has ever guaranteed that availability of a
work's source code will continue to exist at all (if a whole lot of
people become careless all at once).  Hypothetically, if I ended up
being the only person on earth having source code to an important
codebase, I could ask a princely sum for the first copy I was willing to
grant to someone else.  The market might vanish soon thereafter, though.

There used to be a nice little Python toolkit for doing SMTP / POP3 /
etc. e-mail, called Python Message System aka pms, hosted at
http://pythonms.sourceforge.net/ .  Gone.  As far as I'm aware, nobody
anywhere has a copy.  And I'm also fond of a small, fast MUA named Post
Office based on the FLTK toolkit, which almost vanished entirely off the
Internet when www.tarball.net/postoffice/ ceased to exist.  As I
happened to have source tarballs, I gave them a home at
http://linuxmafia.com/pub/linux/apps/postoffice/ .  Maybe I should
charge what the market will bear.  (Sadly, I probably already am.)


From rick at linuxmafia.com  Fri Jun  8 18:49:23 2012
From: rick at linuxmafia.com (Rick Moen)
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2012 11:49:23 -0700
Subject: [License-review] Request for Approval of NO NONSENSE OPEN
 SOURCE LICENSE
In-Reply-To: <4FD22519.4030802@gmail.com>
References: <4FD19C91.3050501@gmail.com> <87ehpp7sna.fsf@floss.red-bean.com>
	<4FD22519.4030802@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20120608184923.GI5191@linuxmafia.com>

Quoting Love Nystrom (love.nystrom at gmail.com):

> Then I find the definition of Open Source to be strange indeed.

Surprise!  No pony, either.  (http://i-want-a-pony.com/)
Sorry, that's perhaps a little curt, so I'll get serious, below.

> However, if "field of endeavor" is scr*wing some authors over, so to
> speak, I agree.

If you as an author dislike how much a redistributor is charging for a
tarball of your source code, you are free to undercut him or her.  So is
anyone else in lawful possession of a tarball instance.  So, people with
grandiose notions of handlers' fees for providing a source code instance
tend to be self-limiting problems.

The pathological corner case would be you creating a very important
creative work (it need not be software), giving me a copy under
permissive licence terms, and then losing your copy, the only other one
in the universe.

In that hypothetical, I could put on my best Dr. Evil impression and
demand 'One _million_ dollars' -- or refuse to provide a copy to anyone.
Does anything give you as the distressed creator recourse against me?
No, not really.  You probably should have thought of the possibility
before you gave me the only other copy and then lost yours.


> What is the reason Open Source can not try to promote decency in
> this regard ?

A sufficient reason is that there's no effort to be an ideological
cause.  Sorry that doesn't work for you.