Subject: Re: Ethics (OT) (was Re: Antiwar License)
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 23:27:33 -0800

Quoting Sergey Goldgaber (sgoldgaber@yahoo.com):

> Yes, that is definately one option I am considering.  However, there
> are some detractions from such a choice.  One of them being that I
> believe an Antiwar License has the potential to be very popular.  If
> this does indeed occur, then it will help the anti-war movement, shine
> more light on the ethical issues of software development, inspire
> others, and sway public oppinion to see open source software in an even
> more positive light.

I'm unclear on how a proprietary licence could cast open-source software
in a more favourable light with the public.  

Since the term "open source" won't be redefined to encompass discrimination
against fields of endeavour (nor against persons and groups), I think
you should start getting used to idea that your licence will likely end
up proprietary -- judging by what you've said.  Certainly not to benefit
your politics, mine, or anyone else's.  

You may end up writing a very useful licence, and I hope you do -- but
I'll be very surprised if it ends up being open source.  

Which reminds me:  

> ...the OSI Discussion List really isn't the appropriate forum to hold
> a political discussion of this nature....

_Are_ you going to get around to writing a licence?  So far, all I've
seen you post is, as you say, political discussion -- followed by
inspiring others to conduct more of the same.  It would be much easier
to discuss your _licence_, here or elsewhere, if you wrote one.

-- 
Cheers,             "Don't use Outlook.  Outlook is really just a security
Rick Moen            hole with a small e-mail client attached to it."
rick@linuxmafia.com                        -- Brian Trosko in r.a.sf.w.r-j
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3