Re: [PROPOSAL] Open Source certification

From: Havoc Pennington <rhp(at)zirx(dot)pair(dot)com>
> But there was *also* an open, public process.

You are correct. In the case of Netscape, there was a private consultation
followed by the publication of a clearly-labeled prototype license which
was _not_ labeled Open Source, even though it was within the terms of the
OSD, followed by a public consultation.

> New licenses should be discouraged, and requiring a public discussion
> period is one way to do that (while also ensuring the legitimacy of any
> that are created, and the harmony of the community).

Agreed.

I think there's a bigger issue here, and one much more difficult to solve
than simply going through a public consultation.
The odious portions of the IBM and Apple licenses are mostly designed for
liability protection for the deep-pockets defendant in the face of patent
litigation and munitions export prosecution. Unfortunately, acceptance of
that protection puts us in the position of strengthening the grip of software
patent law and export restrictions on free software. It's not at all clear to
me that we can provide the corporation with liability protection in a license
_and_ have free software from the same license. About the only solution I can
see is for the corporation to grant a non-exclusive copyright to the software
to a non-profit organization like FSF or SPI that will take charge of the
software's free distribution and stand as owner in the case of a lawsuit or
prosecution, shielding the corporation from that liability.

There's the question of who makes up the public in a public consultation.
In the case of Apple, the Macintosh user community is still large (compared
to us), they have little understanding of free software licensing, and their
attitude seems to be "let's not look a gift-horse in the mouth". I guess
they've never heard of Trojan horses. That attitude could have bad
consequences for the free software community that is liable to be stuck with
bad licenses if it is followed. How to we keep our voices from being
overwhelmed by outsiders?

Thanks

Bruce

> The odious portions of the IBM and Apple licenses are mostly designed
> for liability protection for the deep-pockets defendant in the face of
> patent litigation and munitions export prosecution.

> About the only solution I can see is for the corporation to grant a
> non-exclusive copyright to the software to a non-profit organization
> like FSF or SPI that will take charge of the software's free
> distribution and stand as owner in the case of a lawsuit or prosecution,
> shielding the corporation from that liability.
But aren't the people who form the board of such an organization then
liable for the damages of such a legal suit?

Obviously, the problem is with the export restrictions and the patents
themselves, but I don't know how to fight those.

Will

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| harpo(at)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)cis(dot)udel(dot)edu lowe(at)debian(dot)org |
| http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/ |
| PGP Public Key: http://www.cis.udel.edu/~lowe/index.html#pgpkey |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 10 Apr 1999, Will Lowe wrote:

> But aren't the people who form the board of such an organization then
> liable for the damages of such a legal suit?
>
> Obviously, the problem is with the export restrictions and the patents
> themselves, but I don't know how to fight those.
>

In a courtroom of course. This is one of the reasons we should be
reaching out to other organizations that share some of our interests (like
Ralph Nader's Consumer Project on Technology) and have lawyers affiliated
with them.

Lynn