Last modified by Bruce Perens on 2019/03/15 08:44

  • Bruce Perens
    Bruce Perens, 2019/03/01 19:05

    Hi Pamela,

    Regarding your statement:

     The OSI has recently been challenged with new licenses that stretch the bounds of what we have considered open source software and needs to take a strong stance at protecting the community from licenses that don’t meet the spirit or letter of the Open Source Definition while remaining open minded about revisiting the ways in which the OSI and OSD could better serve the community. 

    Please elaborate. What proposed licenses don't meet the spirit or letter of the Open Source Definition? How could the OSD be revised to better serve the community?

    Also, I know it's difficult to be an attorney and have to represent your client regardless of what you think. It might be easier for you than someone who works for a large firm, since you can actually reject a client while others might not get the choice. How do you balance your work for Free Software / Open Source communities while representing clients who obviously don't share the same interests? Do you appear in contexts where you have to work against us?

  • Pamela Chestek
    Pamela Chestek, 2019/03/05 06:26

    The SSPL doesn't meet either in my view, but its submission has sparked an interesting debate about the appropriate reach of copyleft, the relevance of the submitter's business model and the review process. I agree with others' comments that the fundamental goal is the sharing of software, which perhaps can be understood by examining how likely it is the license will be adopted by others. At the same time, the decisions can't be capricious.

    The Open Source Definition is tried and true; however, you pointed out that OSD 9 refers to "distributed" software, which perhaps is something that should be modified given today's computing environment. 

    I have not had any problem balancing my work for free and open source software with my work for proprietary companies. A lawyer's job is to advise their clients on what would be considered lawful, what would not be, and the extent of the ambiguity in the answer. It's the same law and the same language no matter what side of the fence you are on. I've never had a software licensing client who was interested in acting unlawfully; their desire is to understand the burdens of the licenses and how to comply with them. So I don't see any obvious way that I would end up in a conflict, but I am mindful of, and would comply with, the Conflict of Interest Policy.

  • Bruce Perens
    Bruce Perens, 2019/03/15 08:31

    You are lucky. I have consulted as an intellectual property specialist for companies that decided that compliance wasn't worth the cost. I am bound by NDA and law from revealing who they are.

    You are absolutely right about OSD#9. That word "distributed" made sense in June-July 1997 when it was written for DFSG, and is too narrow now.

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