Comments on Coraline Ada Ehmke

Last modified by XWikiGuest on 2020/05/28 19:28

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/02/19 12:15

    Free software stands above any divisions in our society and its freedom is ultimate and undeniable. Any attempt to deny free software freedoms to a user of the software, nevermind the reason, is harmful and strikes at the heart of free software community. Using grand words doesn't change the fact that you attempted to create a framework for denying free software freedom to the users based on arbitrary factors. Your so called license is just a tool to discredit people who you may disagree with on issues unrelated to the free software movement. There are many people I may disagree with but I would never think about denying those essential freedoms to them.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/02/19 19:08

    I fully support this candidate. We developers write code that can literally kill people either directly or indirectly, so I don't think it's unreasonable with a license like the Hippocratic license that draws a line at human rights abuse. How can one argue otherwise? 

    Open source software has a big problem and that's representation. We are disproportionally white, male developers writing software for a multi-faceted, diverse world. I would argue that tools like the Contributor Covenant and the Hippocratic license are necessary steps to owning up to our real ethical responsibility towards our users and each other. 

    The software we write is political because it has such a big effect on society. We're not above politics or above the law of human rights. I read the Hippocratic license and I think it makes a lot of sense. If I decide to write free software in my spare time you bet I'll want to limit its use so that it can only be used by ethical actors. 

    So, yeah. I think this is a great candidate that would help improve the world of open source.

    • Anonymous
      Anonymous, 2020/03/10 13:46

      Thing is though, the Hippocratic Oath for doctors applies to do no harm, even to those that do harm. If a surgeon is operating on a rapist, the surgeon is not justified in killing the rapist.

      Being judge, jury and executioner for a life in front of you to heal, or to provide basic software freedoms for, is absurdly overreaching, even if it can be achieved without corruption (history shows corruption prevails).

  • kitty
    kitty, 2020/02/24 23:56

    Interesting how you deleted most of the comments here that make you look bad. Including the one you lost your temper and started "shouting". I expect you'll remove this comment as well as you prefer to silence those opinions that differ from your own.

    I don't like that this person has publicly shown emotional instability and extremely toxic and hateful behavior, and I do not support the idea of them having a part in a governing body (not that Open Source is or can be governed). She has shown extremely disproportionate levels of hatred toward people who disagree with anything she says, even minorly so. I especially like the incident where she tries to push Matz out of the core Ruby development because he wouldn't adopt the very politically changed Contributor Covenant document into the MRI codebase, apparently that makes him and all the other core developers terrible bigoted people, even though the ruby community is renowned for being friendly and welcoming to everyone. Spreading vitriol and screaming at people who do not obey you is not a good quality, especially for someone in any sort of leadership position.

    I do not believe that infusing censorship and extreme political biases into open source governance is wise, and I see this as a very transparent power grab of an industry which is inherently designed to be immune to centralized control. I don't see how any of the changes Coraline would bring would lead to long term benefits, as they would be but simply another conquest for her lust of political power in the tech sphere for which to use against anyone in her out-groups. The OSI electing this person would seriously damage my opinion of this organization and I believe would harm the community as a whole.

    Don't claim that I am conservative or rightest, far, far from it. I am simply a concerned rational person who thinks for themself and doesn't yield to authoritarian power trips.

    • Patrick Masson
      Patrick Masson, 2020/02/27 18:18

      Any posts removed were done so by the wiki administrators, not the candidates, after consideration by, and direction from, the OSI Board of Directors.

      • aicra
        aicra, 2020/05/18 21:47

        Censorship here too. I'm so disappointed but not surprised!

  • LuisVilla
    LuisVilla, 2020/02/27 18:35

    Hi, Coraline- I’m asking variations of these to all candidates, trying to edit out the questions that are obviously already answered by your position statement. Apologies if I missed something and asked something already answered! Apologies also for the length, but given the importance of the moment in open source generally and for OSI specifically, I think it is appropriate to go into some depth.

    1. If OSI could do only one thing, what would it be? (Obviously it can do more, but not much more, so I’d love to understand your #1 priority for the org.)
    2. Should OSI move towards a board that advises more and does (on a day-to-day basis) less? If so, what will you do to help bring about that change? If not, why not?
    3. If OSI has to choose between being an agent of change and a stabilizing force, which should it prefer?
    4. What should OSI do about the tens of millions of people who regularly collaborate to build software online (often calling that activity, colloquially, open source) but have literally no idea what OSI is or what it does?
    5. You have 24 hours in the day, and are talented enough to do many different things. Why do you want to give some of those hours to OSI?
    6. If an Ethical Software Initiative sprung up tomorrow, what should OSI’s relationship to it be? (If you’re uncomfortable answering this about ethical software, consider instead answering with regards to the FSF or LF, or another hypothetical institution that to some extent competes with OSI for resources and influence.)

    Thanks in advance for answering, and thanks for putting forth a thoughtful case for your candidacy.

    • CoralineEhmke
      CoralineEhmke, 2020/02/27 21:33

      1) I think the OSI has been hyperfocused on licensing for the past two decades, and in efforts to make open source palatable to governments and corporations to promote adoption. I believe that the time is right for the organization to consider whether its mission should instead focus on the real engine of open source: developers and other contributors who grew up making software collaboratively, in the open, and granting the privilege of remixing.

      • Anonymous
        Anonymous, 2020/03/09 01:07

        There isn't anything that prevents anyone regardless of ethnicity from mixing in.  Almost everyone I've worked with has been exceptionally welcoming even when I came out as trans.

        How do you hope to achieve this when the rules you've managed to get instated into countless projects are nebulous and have been used to throw hate around, even going so far as to see the CC get used against minorities and trans people alike?

        I've watched many projects splinter and crumble, fork, etc, while the diversified version gets neglected and the other version gets maintained.

        This is so extremely terrifying to someone like me who has autism and can't completely understand subjectivity.

        As a human, I want to treat everyone else like humans and welcome them, not focus on my skin tone and be reminded I should be hated for it.

    • CoralineEhmke
      CoralineEhmke, 2020/02/27 21:36

      2) From my limited interactions with OSI officials, I get the impression that they are overworked by doing a thankless job. Having served on the boards of other successful nonprofit organizations, I have a lot of experience and insight into how responsibilities and labor can be shared. In my opinion, at the very least, every such organization needs paid staff for the day-to-day operations, including a community manager. I'm very interested in how the OSI'S budget is allocated and how it might be able to fund critical organizational infrastructure like this.

    • CoralineEhmke
      CoralineEhmke, 2020/02/27 21:40

      3) I would argue that change IS a stabilizing force. Open source has matured, grown, and thrived, and taken its (rightful) place in the critical infrastructure of modern tech. It's time for OSS governance bodies to start focusing on supporting creators, including supporting them in exercising their greater-than-average ethical responsibility for how their work impacts the world. The real agents of change are the creators and contributors— the OSI should give them voice and support.

    • CoralineEhmke
      CoralineEhmke, 2020/02/27 21:44

      4) I'm really happy about the OSI's involvement in efforts to bring the promise of open source to underserved people and places around the world. That's a great first step. But to your point, most people who practice open source development don't know about the OSI because the OSI hasn't really been a prominent actor in the culture of developing software in the open in a way that is visible to them. What does the OSI have to offer them aside from the (still importnt) oversight of licenses?

    • CoralineEhmke
      CoralineEhmke, 2020/02/27 21:49

      5) I prioritize my time and effort to optimize for impact. I think the OSI has tremendous potential for good, and I'm hoping to work with them in the spirit of reform and conciliation. My desired outcome in the conflict between the historical concept of software freedom and the critical importance of ethical source principles, is that the organization evolves and matures in response to the needs and responsibilities of everyone in the open source community. It's more efficient to contribute to an existing project to make change than to fork it and start over.

    • CoralineEhmke
      CoralineEhmke, 2020/02/27 21:53

      6) The answer is that we're deciding that right now.

      It's not incorporated as an institution, but the Ethical Source Working Group was founded in November and has 125 members from lots of different disciplines working to define, refine, and promote ethical source principles in both licensing and non-licensing projects. 

      I'm happy to say that among the group's membership, the OSI and Software Freedom Conservancy are already well-represented.

  • fontana
    fontana, 2020/02/28 00:36

    Hi Coraline, sorry you experienced abuse on this wiki. If you were on the OSI board and could persuade the OSI to open the door to ethical source licenses, what would your position be on all the existing OSI-approved licenses, or future-proposed licenses that would not meet the Ethical Source Definition? What I'm asking basically is whether you see OSI license approval as an umbrella concept that could embrace both traditional OSD-type licenses as well as ESD-type licenses, or do you regard existing OSI-approved/OSD-conformant licenses as flawed enough that the OSI should move towards changing the OSD to mandate that approved licenses conform to the ESD? Sorry if this is something you've already addressed, I'm still becoming familiar with the ethical source movement and I could see how someone supporting the ESD could take either of those positions. 

    • CoralineEhmke
      CoralineEhmke, 2020/02/28 01:34

      I can see different paths forward, and to be honest there are a lot of people more experienced with licensing than me. I don't think that realistically anything would ever change with OSD1 licenses. I could see a tiered system, with an OSD tier and an Ethical Open Source tier. I think it's something that would have to be discussed. 

      That being said, I also believe that the OSD should be seriously and critically evaluated to see if it still meets the needs of the subsequent generations of developers. I would propose organizing a representative and *diverse* working group on that topic.

      • Anonymous
        Anonymous, 2020/03/11 02:23

         I would propose organizing a representative and *diverse* working group on that topic.

        Why is affirmative action the right thing to do? Reverse marginalization is marginalization too.

        • Anonymous
          Anonymous, 2020/04/23 16:18

          Do not call it "reverse marginalization".
          It's not reverse.

          Nor is it marginalization, really. It is discrimination. Not reverse discrimination. It's discrimination.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/02/28 01:22

    Debian once rejected some licence because it was meant to be used "only for good". They were right. The problem is: who decides what is good or evil? What is ethical and what isn't? You? The government? The lawyers and courts when someone forks some project and the author doesn't like that? Philosophers much more intelligent than you or me have been debating it since dawn of time and haven't reached any conclusive decision. What one thinks is ethical is not what other does. Freedom is freedom. It's not about ethics. It's simple to understand. Do we have the 4 freedoms? To do good and evil, in mine or anyone else's eyes?

    • CoralineEhmke
      CoralineEhmke, 2020/02/28 01:36

      Couldn't the same argument be made against laws in general?

      In all seriousness, as Edmund Berkeley put it in an ACM paper on ethics in computing, there are some activities that are unquestionably for social good, some activities that are unquestionably for social ill, and a wide swath of activities in between. The Hippocratic License, for example, cites as moral authority the United Nation's Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Certainly human rights don't fall into Berkeley's wide in-between swath, do they?

      • Anonymous
        Anonymous, 2020/03/11 23:46

        Yes, the same argument can be and is made about laws in general. After all, it was once considered standard in law to put homosexuals in prison. Such arguments have been made for centuries and forms the philosophical basis of libertarianism: enforcing a certain viewpoint on everyone comes with enormous costs when that viewpoint isn't optimal, which is why the richest countries try, at least notionally, to avoid regulation unless deemed absolutely necessary. It's why the process of making law is so complex, with so many checks and balances, and why it's ultimately a power reserved to people who have to win votes from the entire population, to ensure everyone's views are at least theoretically taken into account.

        The fact that you're citing the UN's notion of human rights as being "obvious" shows just how little you understand politics and philosophy. The UK is in the middle of a very real debate about exiting the EU's human rights laws because they're vague, contradictory, badly thought out, frequently result in absurd outcomes and inconsistently enforced. They're good intentioned but bad laws, which is why the government is considering removing or rewriting them. In the USA the Bill of Rights enshrines gun ownership as a fundamental right, but such a right isn't recognised in most of the world. Human rights are one of THE most controversial and widely debated areas of law; your belief that it's simple shows how deeply unqualified you are.

        As someone who's been writing open source code longer than you, if you're somehow elected to the OSI board then the OSI's decisions will instantly cease to have any relevance or moral weight with me. There's no-one I can think of less suited to be on the board of such an organisation. Regardless of what you've convinced yourself about your own beliefs, your primary goals seem to be  exclusion rather than inclusion. Your character is also entirely ill suited for the OSI's mission, for instance, you have repeatedly engaged in exceptionally vicious behaviour like trying to get founders of key projects kicked out of their own life's work. It's no surprise to discover that you're completely unaware of the complexities and deep debates surrounding human rights law in the real world.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/02/28 02:22

    "Giving everyone freedom means giving evil people freedom, too."

    And that's a good thing.

    • CoralineEhmke
      CoralineEhmke, 2020/02/28 02:46

      Can you point to any example in contemporary society where "evil people" enjoy the same freedoms as others?

      • McCoy Smith
        McCoy Smith, 2020/02/28 02:53

        One example might be the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution.

        • CoralineEhmke
          CoralineEhmke, 2020/02/28 03:00

          Do mass murderers in prison enjoy all of those rights?

          • McCoy Smith
            McCoy Smith, 2020/02/28 03:11

            Yes, they do.

            • Anonymous
              Anonymous, 2020/02/28 10:28

              No they don't.

              • McCoy Smith
                McCoy Smith, 2020/02/28 11:59

                https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/amendment-14/section-1/rights-of-prisoners
                A more salient discussion point might be , inter alia, the trail of  Radovan Karadžić, a mass murderer who nonetheless received the protections of the UNiversal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 5, during his trial,conviction, and punishment.

                • CoralineEhmke
                  CoralineEhmke, 2020/02/29 01:24

                  I don't see many people in prison taking advantage of their second amendment rights.

                  • Anonymous
                    Anonymous, 2020/03/08 20:00

                    I'm sorry but do you understand the second amendment? Because your comment here seems to suggest you don't. The right is not unlimited in that you're allowed to own and bear arms everywhere, at any time. As courts have established, there are limits, such as the limits for felons and the mentally ill. It doesn't remove your right if you fall into these categories, you still have the right to own and bear arms as a non felon, non mentally ill person. The right just doesn't give such a person the right to bear arms while having that status as the right in question, is specifically excluding those categories. The claim that you've lost the right, is the same claim as claiming that you're losing your right to free speech because you're mute. It just simply doesn't work that way. That you are currently unable to make use of your right in the way you want to, doesn't mean you don't have the right.

          • Anonymous
            Anonymous, 2020/03/05 21:37

            Do you plan only to exercise your potential future power against mass murderers, or do you plan to use it against people who simply disagree with you on politics and culture war issues? 

      • Anonymous
        Anonymous, 2020/03/11 22:31

        An evil person enjoys all the same freedoms as others in any society up and until the point where they do something to have their freedoms revoked. How do they become recognized as an evil person? Because someone observes them being evil? What if that person is wrong? For example, the purpose of the minimum wage is to cause unemployment among disfavored workers. What if someone, on that basis, opposes the establishment of any minimum wage? There are no end of social justice warriors who are ignorant of the purpose of the minimum wage, and will claim that opposition to the minimum wage is evil. Are they right? Are they wrong? How do we know? On what basis do we judge someone?

        What if I said that you are an evil person? On what basis am I making that judgment? Am I right? Am I wrong? Could I deny you the use of my ethical software? Given the power you want copyright holders to have, I could be making my own judgment, and you cannot gainsay me.

        This opens a HUGE can of worms, which the OSI has successfully avoided so far. You should not be on the OSI board given your goals.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/02/28 03:27
  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/02/28 10:20

    Why do you feel its necessary to shoehorn these ethical licenses and clauses which are by definition not open, into the open source definition?
    Why can't ethical licenses and your ethical source definition just stand on their own merit?

    • Valentino Giudice
      Valentino Giudice, 2020/03/08 11:41

      What merit would they stand on?

  • Patrick Masson
    Patrick Masson, 2020/02/29 20:10

    The comment from Anonymous, at 2020-02-29 19:55:40.0 was removed.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/03 01:26

    This campaign goes against the core tenants of open-source philosophy, as Coraline makes explicitly clear. I respect what she's trying to do, but this is NOT the way to do it. 

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/03 04:29

    Your stated goal is to use software licenses to assert control over peoples' actions. This is not compatible with the open source philosophy. This is an attempted hijacking of a good, reputable organization in an attempt to pursue policies we already understand are fundamentally wrong.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/03 13:44

    Hi.
    I honestly think your course of action (i.e. selecting who's eligible to use software based on their views and actions) will lead to OSS to the brink of being unused.
    Your desire to restrict OSS goes indeed against the core values of Open-Source philosophy; and this would be a change too big to retain the name of "Open Source" as it is against what this philosophy stand for.

    Hence my first batch of questions:
    1) Why do you want to gain more influence over an organization whose core values you disagree with?
    2) Have you considered creating/joining a movement that would be more in tune with your own values? If so, what caused you to turn towards the OSD?

    I've read both your Contributor Covenant and your Hippocratic Licence and was very opposed to the concepts exposed. I found them to be very unspecific about what applies and what doesn't apply, to the point where I find reasonable under your licence to prevent an entire 100.000 people corporation from using licenced software, based on the perceived harmfulness of a single individual constituting this corporation. This is what lead me to believe that this concept would led to OSS being unused, either because of excessive banning, or because corporations wouldn't even risk finding themselves unable to use their chosen technological foundation.
    I am very opposed to this idea, because over a pool of people this large you're bound to find something imperfect that would be grounds for being banned from the aforementioned software.

    Hence my second batch of questions:
    3) Over the course of history, a lot of people came forth claiming to have a definite response to what is good and what is evil; this subject is still up to debate nowadays. How does those licences fare in regards to the imperfection of our ability to perceive said good and evil? Does their definition evolve with our perception of this subject? How is good and evil reevaluated in your system and at which frequency?
    4) Who have authority to decide who is able to use the software and who is barred from it? Is it a whitelisting process or a blacklisting process?

  • Patrick Masson
    Patrick Masson, 2020/03/03 16:14

    I have removed two comments from anonymous posters.

    • aicra
      aicra, 2020/05/18 21:49

      :O

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/04 17:34

    Hello Coraline

    Why do you think that your own version of Good and Evil should prime over the moral opinions and judgements of others?

  • Xin
    Xin, 2020/03/04 22:21

    While I'm all for ethical software licenses, take software patents for example is a major issue that still exists in some countries.

    But, don't take this the wrong way. I don't mean this as an insult but I just don't think you are capable of doing it as you have shown time and time again that you cannot keep your composure in a civil discussion and resort to attacks and a toxic attitude in general whenever someone disagrees with you.

    Like, you could work on not doing that so you don't stop the discussion before its even started?

    Also speaking of ethical responsibilities, its unfortunate that the #ethicalsource hashtag inevitably ends up leading to your profile and you seem to spend a lot of time talking about illegal substances (which are punishable by death). If thats allowed in your place of home then okay, you do you but it's not a good look to have that kind of browser history at work, also makes it a hard sell to others because things like that are just not tolerated in this part of the world and makes you look like bad spokeman.

    So maybe also try not do that as much? 

    Thank for consideration

  • Patrick Masson
    Patrick Masson, 2020/03/05 03:57

    I have removed the post by Valentino Giudice.

    • Valentino Giudice
      Valentino Giudice, 2020/03/08 11:38

      Could you explain why you removed my post, as it didn't insult any person?
      The willingness of OSI to censor comments under this thread is embarassing.

      When you remove a post you should probably explain why.

      • Valentino Giudice
        Valentino Giudice, 2020/03/08 11:40

        I reworded the comment in the form of a question rather than a statement.
        I don't know if it's ok now, because you provided absolutely no reason why it wasn't ok before.

        • Patrick Masson
          Patrick Masson, 2020/03/08 17:33

          Yes, it is a good suggestion to post a rationale for the removal of a post. Of course, we will need to be sure not to include anything in the explanation that could further inappropriate comments or discussions.

          And yes, questions related to the candidate's positions specific to the OSI is best. Thank you for rephrasing and posting again.

  • Patrick Masson
    Patrick Masson, 2020/03/05 04:00

    I have removed the post by Anonymous

    • Anonymous
      Anonymous, 2020/05/18 21:51

      Why do you keep removing these comments! what if I told you... censoring is "evil" in my opinion. This is offensive!

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/08 19:15

    Running a campaign on a platform of censorship makes me question your motives. It would seem that you do not seek to make the open source community better or healthier - rather, that you would look to destroy the freedoms and opportunities created by these communities, solely because you deem certain people to be undesirables. 

    Your conception of "evil" or "bad actors" is subjective. What do you consider evil? Is it evil to toss twins or disfigured infants into the forest? To us, certainly, but elsewhere in the world, these actions would be considered good and appropriate. Your subjective conception of who is and isn't a "bad actor" will inevitably conflict with others of different cultures, viewpoints, and ethical standpoints - and thus, to try and seek out a position of authority on the grounds of allowing you to bar others from accessing open source software... it is unacceptable.

    Open source software is, by definition, open and available to all. If you seek to restrict access to it, well, it is no longer open source, and a new and proper open-source community will immediately take the place of this one.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/08 21:07

    To paraphrase _A Man for all seasons_ - once you've cut these freedoms down flat, Coraline, where then to hide for those who have merely displeased you? You'll have already firmly established the principle that freedom is a malleable, elusive thing and I just don't trust you not to steadily expand the scope your definition of "evil" encompasses - after all, if truth and rightness be in _your_ corner, who could _possibly_ disagree with you?

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/09 00:51

    There is an obvious problem with having anyone with strong political opinions being placed in a position of authority over others based on an "ethical argument". Their politics tend to override common sense, and certainly interfere with concepts of compassion or consideration in any situation where objective judgement needs to be made. 

    Ethical arguments are among the hardest to define, they do not lend themselves to being evaluated on a numerical bases for example, so such decisions tend to be made arbitrarily. Under those circumstances the decision maker will struggle to keep their politics out of the decision, if they try to do so at all. 

    There are also the comments regarding the philosphy behind open-source material, is having an ethical position aside from free speech actually of any value at all? Or is it shoe-horning in a biased and vague set of "principles" in order to apply pressure and obtain power with minimal amount of work from the proposer. 

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/09 02:10

    "I believe that in good-faith collaboration and partnership with my peers in the Open Source Initiative, we can move the community forward and ensure that open source lives up to its full potential as a force for good in the world.

    Software freedom that is not in service of human freedom, isn't freedom at all."

    Can you give us some examples of evil OSS? 

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/09 05:50

    This individual has been sabotaging open source communities for years, and should not be allowed to sabotage the OSI or its mission as well.

    I am posting anonymously because I will come under attack on social media and risk being fired from my job for publicly opposing the Hippocratic License's acceptance by OSI and/or this individual's admission into the OSI board. Were I to post my opposition under my real name, Ehmke would rally a mob on social media to attack me and rail against my employer until they fired me.

    The fact that this sort of pressure is what is brought to bear is exactly why Ehmke and the Hippocratic License should be rejected from the OSI. They would remove our "freedom" to oppose them.

  • Patrick Masson
    Patrick Masson, 2020/03/12 03:29

    Comment removed for language.

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/12 12:44

    Sir Isaiah Berlin's "Two Concepts of Liberty" and "The Hedgehog and the Fox" are both helpful in thinking through these kind of issues. The former poses the question: 'Is liberty freedom from interference or is it the freedom to set the rules of society?' The latter playfully divides the world into two kinds of thinkers: those who understand the world via a single defining idea ('Hedgehogs') and those who use a variety of concepts, chosen or abandoned according to utility ('Foxes'). Berlin took the metaphor from the Greek poet Archilochus, who wrote: "The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing." 

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/13 06:42

    How can Ms. Corey even be eligible for a seat when they break the code of conduct on a daily basis by publicly shaming anyone that agrees with them?

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/03/13 14:52

    I have just read the proposed ethical open source license
    https://firstdonoharm.dev/
    Imagine if the Linux kernel was licensed under the proposed license, how could it ever be that every individual contributor would agree on what is correct behaviour that permits continued use of the kernel. No comedian could ever make use of the Linux kernel. The proposed license is a proprietary licence and the worst kind of proprietary license, you can use the software until we decide you cannot use the software and we will revoke your right to use it based upon what any of the contributors to that software feel about you on any given day. 

  • Anonymous
    Anonymous, 2020/05/28 19:28

    Ehmke, what are your thoughts on Red Star OS? An operating system put together by - on most people's accounts an arguably oppressive regime. Would you allow them to continue using open source software? If not, how would you enforce it?

Submit feedback regarding this wiki to webmaster@opensource.org

This wiki is licensed under a Creative Commons 2.0 license
XWiki 14.10.13 - Documentation