Software system administrators are not always SaaS providers. And users are often administrators of their own software, that is a fundamental point of Free Software, that you _can_ do that. I don't believe that FSF has ever made any statement in favor of encumbering the data processed by their programs. I don't believe they will. And I don't believe that encumbering user data is in any way a step *forward *for the freedom of that user.
On Fri, Jul 5, 2019 at 12:07 PM Luis Villa <[email protected]> wrote: > On Sat, Jun 29, 2019 at 6:40 AM Pamela Chestek <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> >> On 6/28/19 11:40 PM, Bruce Perens via License-discuss wrote: >> >> >>> 3. *A license that requires data portability*. >>> Section 2.3(b) obliges the user of a software to “provide to any third >>> party with which you have an enforceable legal agreement, a no-charge copy >>> … of the User Data in your possession in which that third party has a >>> Lawful Interest ….” The license submitter confirmed in this sequence of >>> emails that the intent of this provision is to expand the scope of software >>> freedom: >>> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license >>> -review_lists.opensource.org/2019-May/004123.html >>> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license >>> -review_lists.opensource.org/2019-May/004124.html >>> http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license >>> -review_lists.opensource.org/2019-May/004126.html >>> The members of the License Review Committee do not agree whether this >>> is appropriate for an open source license. It therefore requires >>> extensive additional public discussion before the OSI will be able to reach >>> a conclusion on this point. >>> >> >> It's my opinion that this is out of scope for an Open Source license. My >> argument is on the record above and I'm glad to elaborate. I think Arthur >> (Van's customer) could explain what he wants to do with this and why he >> thinks it's important. But even if I end up approving of the sentiment, so >> far I think it would remain out of scope for an OSI approved Open Source >> license. Of course, you don't need OSI's approval to use any license you >> wish. >> >> > Access to data is a big part of why I keep asking what OSI means by > software freedom. If the ultimate rubric for OSI is 'freedom' then I don't > think you can answer 'how should licenses interact with data' without a > theory of what 'freedom' means, including whose 'freedom' the standard is. > > If 'software freedom' means 'freedom for software system administrators > (known commonly known as SaaS providers)', then the answer to this is > probably fairly straightforward: data/privacy rules are an unacceptable > impingement on their freedom; they should be able to run the software as > they see fit for their users, with complete flexibility (within legal and > commercial constraints) to choose how to use/interact with/dispose of data. > So, in that case, data is not appropriate for an open source license; easy > call. > > If 'software freedom' means 'freedom for software end users (sometimes > known as human beings)', then the answer to this is also straightforward: > data is increasingly central to any reasonable assessment of human autonomy > as mediated by software. This has been obvious for over a decade (I first > wrote about it publicly in 2008 > <https://wiki.gnome.org/Attic/FreeOpenServicesDefinition/DataControl>). > Perhaps one might then oppose this on the grounds that *licenses* are > *pragmatically > ineffective* ways to expand this freedom, but it's certainly obvious that > *philosophically > *human control over data is a part of software freedom and within scope > of any comprehensive theory of software freedom. So perhaps CAL is still > out of bounds, but on pragmatic grounds, not philosophical. > > I'm pretty sure I know how FSF thinks about this philosophically; their > definition of software freedom has consistently extended to *user*-control: > user modification of Javascript, activism against DRM, etc. It's possible > they might oppose CAL on pragmatic grounds, since there's a (strong!) case > to be made that licensing is an ineffective tool for this, and perhaps even > (as with some tough cases around DRM) they might decide that freedom zero > trumps all other rights, even when that definitively reduces user freedom. > I hope they weigh in on CAL at some point to help further clarify their > thinking as to how that might translate into practice (both inside and > outside of licensing). > > I genuinely don't know what OSI institutionally thinks software freedom > means in this context, and would look forward to clarification. > > Luis [I'm mostly off the grid starting tomorrow; sorry about the bad > timing but look forward to seeing how this develops] > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org > -- Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital.
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
