Why limit the pledge to OSI-approved licences?

[Dirk Hohndel]

On Dec 8, 2020, at 10:52 AM, Bradley M. Kuhn <bkuhn at sfconservancy.org<mailto:bkuhn at sfconservancy.org>> wrote:

To be frank about how OSI-approved wound up in there, I just figured that
list would be the least controversial.

I briefly considered that perhaps copyleft-only made sense, which I'd be
glad to discuss.  The issue with non-copyleft works is that they could be
incorporated legitimately into proprietary products, which might compete
with the proprietary products of the company sending the takedown notice.

I actually think that focusing on copyleft licenses would in some ways be easier
for many companies to wrap their minds around. It would make this pledge
narrower which may not your intention, but I think it would be consistent with
the underlying idea.


Heiki Lõhmus wrote:
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".

I do think we could and should limit to software licensed under a standard
FOSS license "somehow".

I agree with that. The broader the pledge becomes, the harder it will get to get
broad support.

/D
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sfconservancy.org/pipermail/dmca-pledge/attachments/20201208/d73005e5/attachment.html>