[LUAU] the OSI is a danger to Software Freedom

[Jim Thompson]

Wasn't it ESR and the OSI who re-purposed Software Freedom as "Open  
Source" to make it "safe for business"?

It became about *business*, not about *freedom*.  The rhetoric  
changed, and with it, the focus.  Thus the contract law interpretation.

The OSI approved the "Artistic License" as an "Open Source License".   
Note that the original Artistic License is NOT a Free Software  
License, though
the 2.0 version of same is.
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#ArtisticLicense
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#PerlLicense

And yes, if the legal world starts to re-interpret licenses based on  
copyright under contract law, then there is a world of hurt about to  
happen.   Microsoft could afford to pay almost any amount of  
'damages' to co-opt GPL software (including the linux kernel), and  
even then there is the issue of who would receive, and then cash, the  
check.

As long as its *just* about money, we loose.

I anticipate amicus briefs from SFLC and EFF.

On Aug 25, 2007, at 11:48 AM, Clifton Royston wrote:

> On Sat, Aug 25, 2007 at 01:22:56AM -1000, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> From the blog of the General Counsel, (pro bono), of the Open Source
>> Initiative:
>> http://lawandlifesiliconvalley.blogspot.com/2007/08/new-open-source-
>> legal-decision-jacobsen.html
>>
>> Watch now as OSI licenses start to fall like dominoes before the
>> assault of Microsoft and others.
>
>   I don't see how you get from "bad court decision" to "it's OSI's
> fault" as your subject implies.  (Though I don't disagree that the
> proliferation of faux-open licenses is a serious problem.)
>
>   In particular, doesn't Perl's "Artistic License" significantly
> predate the OSI?  ('Programming Perl' was published in '91 and I think
> Perl used some variation of the Artistic License from the earliest,
> while OSI only formed in '98.) And doesn't the court's reasoning in
> this case pose just as much threat to the GPL?
>
>   On the positive side, this is only a district court case, and I  
> would
> hope this might be differently decided on appeal, particularly if the
> appeal cites appropriate cases which have been decided differently.