SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Open Source Initiative bans co-founder, Eric S Raymond:
Last week, Eric S Raymond (often known as ESR, author of The Cathedral and the Bazaar, and co-founder of the Open Source Intiative) was banned from the Open Source Intiative[sic] (the "OSI").
Specifically, Raymond was banned from the mailing lists used to organize and communicate with the OSI.
For an organization to ban their founder from communicating with the group (such as via a mailing list) is a noteworthy move.
At a time when we have seen other founders (of multiple Free and Open Source related initiatives) pushed out of the organizations they founded (such as with Richard Stallman being compelled to resign from the Free Software Foundation, or the attempts to remove Linus Torvalds from the Linux Kernel – both of which happened within the last year) it seems worth taking a deeper look at what, specifically, is happening with the Open Source Initiative.
I don't wish to tell any of you what you should think about this significant move. As such I will simply provide as much of the relevant information as I can, show the timeline of events, and reach out to all involved parties for their points of view and comments.
The author provides links to — and quotations from — entries on the mailing list supporting this. There is also a conversation the author had with ESR. The full responses he received to his queries are posted, as well.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Zinho on Wednesday March 11 2020, @01:03AM (8 children)
FYI, your license proposal is redundant with the existing WTFPL:
http://www.wtfpl.net/ [wtfpl.net]
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2020, @01:30AM (7 children)
It is not. WTFPL uses legalese. It ought to be possible to simply state your will in unambiguous plain-text, rather than template everything around copyright templates and prose like the WTFPL and many others.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday March 11 2020, @02:26AM (6 children)
I've got to disagree - if you're waiving your legal rights, a certain level of explicitness is called for.
"Do anything you want."
What if I want to turn your refined software into a buggy, crappy morass malware and back doors, while still publishing it as your creation? That's not obviously something you intended, but it falls under the license. So long as you have to explicitly waive your legal rights it's harder for such bad apples to operate within the law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2020, @05:47AM (2 children)
>What if I want to turn your refined software into a buggy, crappy morass malware and back doors, while still publishing it as your creation? That's not obviously something you intended
No, that would be an acceptable result to me if I were to waive my rights. Anyone receiving software under such a license should be critical as to the source--they would naive to believe the stated author was the actual author unless they had concrete proof.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday March 11 2020, @03:17PM (1 child)
>Anyone receiving software under such a license should be critical as to the source
Under what license? Proprietary? GPL? The sleazy intermediary can release it under any license they like, and most customers probably won't be aware one way or the other. They just know "your" software is a bunch of malware ridden crap, and stay away from it in the future.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2020, @04:55PM
Or, worse/better, put in a transphobic and/or anti-semitic statement in a comment or commit message under the "author"'s name, and watch them become persona non grata overnight.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 11 2020, @01:33PM
I agree with the AC. That's a valid use of the software under the license.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2020, @05:19PM (1 child)
What if I want to write a wholly original buggy crappy morass of malware and back doors, and publish it with your name on it? Seems that would do the same harm to your reputation, while making your license choice completely irrelevant.
Wouldn't whatever defamation etc. laws your country has to prevent my scenario also apply to yours, even with the license? A license to use copyrighted code is not a license to libel.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday March 11 2020, @05:30PM
XYZ Criminal Activity on a computer, isn't a novel criminal activity.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"