Subject: Re: Ethics (OT) (was Re: Antiwar License)
From: Rick Moen <>
Date: Tue, 4 Mar 2003 15:38:34 -0800

Quoting Sergey Goldgaber (

> I am replying to your message in two parts.  One posted to the OSI
> License Discussion list, and the other to the OSSEthics list, to try to
> keep the heavily political aspects of this very political issue off the
> OSI list as much as possible.

Thank you for doing that.  At the same time, I'm not on your new mailing
list, and so will not be commenting there.

> I have recieved several suggestions, on the lists and in private about
> how an Antiwar License may be written so that it is open source.

As noted, we cannot comment on a proposed licence until there is one.
Your comments earlier suggested an objective incompatible with the OSD,
but we cannot say for certain until there is a licence text.  

> However, even if it winds up technically proprietary because of
> incompatibilities with sections 5 or 6 of the OSD, I see no reason why
> it couldn't retain other aspects characteristic of open source, such
> as the distribution of source code, allowing derivative works, etc.

You see, we've heard all this before, from others:  We're advised that
licence foo is only _technically_ proprietary, in being non-OSD-compliant.  
But the OSD is, so to speak, technical in its essence.  But, again, this 
conversation is devoid of substance without a licence to analyse.

>> _Are_ you going to get around to writing a licence?
>> So far,
> "Get around to"?  "So far"?  It has only been a couple of days!

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, in those couple of days, I believe you
haven't yet posted even a _clause_ from any candidate licence text.  

In times of major public controversy, there is a tendency for partisans
of such discussions to spill over onto technical mailing lists and
attempt advocacy there, finding creative ways to justify it as allegedly
within the list's charter -- while never quite getting around to the
list's actual subject matter.  I'll gladly assume that such was not your
intent:  I just note the coincidence that there has been no licence
presented for the group's scrutiny, that you've posted (what strikes me
as) a lot of political advocacy and implied that the OSD should be
changed to accomodate your political views, and that the resulting
replies have consisted largely of further digressions into politics.

Anyhow, if/when you _do_ write a licence, if you seriously aspire to
make it OSD-compliant -- as opposed to making the OSD compliant with
your licence -- please do post it here for comments and suggestions.

Cheers,              "By reading this sentence, you agree to be bound by the 
Rick Moen             terms of the Internet Protocol, version 4, or, at your   option, any later version."  -- Seth David Schoen
license-discuss archive is at