shaunagm
commented
5 years ago There are a number of terms in this license that are very loosely defined, including "creator", "community", "consistently and fairly enforced", "welcoming", and "reasonable and voluntary compensation". ("Unethical" is also a very loosely defined word, but the license specifies that it is up to the project to determine what is unethical and what is not.)
I don't think the loose definitions are inherently a problem. All definitions have some uncertainty in them, and that's one of the key functions that organizations like FSF and OSI serve - to (somewhat) authoritatively rule on how terms are defined in various cases. But that does raise the question of what organization will end up defining and enforcing the Ethical Source Definition. To me, that question is almost more important that the terms of the ESD itself. The specific language of the ESD will depend a great deal on what capacities the community has for definition and enforcement.
robbyoconnor
zspencer
While reading the definition, something occurred to me that I wonder about.
The 4th and 5th criteria refer to the software’s “creators”, but the second talks about community contributions. Does this imply that the “creators” may be distinct from the “community”? Does this definition intentionally punt on how one defines “creators” to whom these powers are granted?
To be clear: I understand and agree with the spirit expressed here. I’m more wondering if y'all have thoughts on how best to defend this sort of assertion of rights against potential attack by someone claiming rights as a “creator” in order to undermine the protections others are trying to put in place.