Why limit the pledge to OSI-approved licences?

[Heiki Lõhmus]

Dear all,

First, I would like to thank Conservancy for taking the initiative on
this important issue.

Second, I would like to invite you all to consider whether the pledge
should be limited to OSI-approved licences. I would like to broaden this
to include any licence approved by the FSF or the OSI or software
purportedly placed into the public domain as long as the source code is
made available.

The OSI list misses CC0 and WTFPL for instance, so in a world where RIAA
would sign up to this pledge, they would have complied with the current
draft when they issued their takedown notice for youtube-dl.

Developers less versed in copyright questions or simply deeply opposed
to copyright expansionism may also distribute Free Software with an
informal statement along the lines of "all rights disclaimed" or
"released into the public domain". As long as such software grants the
user the four freedoms, it should also be covered by the pledge.


Cheers,
-- 
Heiki Lõhmus
Vice President
Free Software Foundation Europe
mailto:repentinus at fsfe.org
xmpp:repentinus at fsfe.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 228 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/dmca-pledge/attachments/20201206/ecb1ebd3/attachment.sig>