5 ms·

This seems well intentioned but poorly thought out. Also, software distributed under this license does not qualify as free software under the GNU _or_ OSI model

This seems well intentioned but poorly thought out. Also, software distributed under this license does not qualify as free software under the GNU _or_ OSI models.

schoen 9y ago
The FSF and OSI models are meant to cover the same class of software (for example, both explicitly accept both copyleft and permissively-licensed software). So far I believe they've disagreed about the status of a total of two licenses, which are rarely used.
api 9y ago
There are issues with this, but on the latter point: why are the GNU and OSI models an unquestionable religion? Do they work? Are they achieving their stated objectives? Why can't we question them?
- nailer 9y ago
  They're not, but it's important to distinguish Open Source from other types of licenses, and avoid statements like: > License Zero is based on the two-clause BSD License, a classic permissive Open Source license, with two key additions: > Commercial use is limited to 90 days Which makes it seem like this is Open Source when it isn't.
  - kemitchell 9y ago
    The "Departure" section of the manifesto addresses very directly that the patch to BSD-2-Clause takes it out of the Open Source Definition: > According to The Open Source Definition, discriminating against commerce and non-contributors is not “Open Source”. The Definition also prohibits discrimination against “fields of endeavor”, like commerce, and persons and groups, like non-contributors. That means License Zero is no longer an Open Source license, even if it remains remarkably generous, a public gift to charitable organizations, students, teachers, academics, and hobbyists everywhere. L0-NC derives from BSD-2-Clause to make transition back to OSD-conformant terms very clear.
    - orangecat 9y ago
      You're making it seem like it's just a technicality over definitions when it really is a fundamental difference. It explicitly rejects the "freedom zero" of open source, the freedom to actually run the software. It means that if I inadvertently download L0 software from npm at work, 91 days later my company is in violation of criminal copyright law. No open source license does that, not even AGPL. ("But you'd also be in violation if it were regular commercial software!" True, but in that case it wouldn't be on npm and I wouldn't have made that mistake). If you want to position L0 as a way for commercial software vendors to distribute source, that's fine. But I strongly object to the implication that it's just a "patch" on top of existing open source licenses.
      - kemitchell 9y ago
        It is a patch on top of an open source license, BSD-2-Clause. Legal terms aren't exactly like computer code, but the analogy works here. Unmodified BSD-2-Clause meets OSI's "test suite", the Open Source Definition, and FSF's test suite, "What is free software?". Patched, L0-NC fails both test suites. Passing isn't about provenance of the "raw material". It's about what the terms do. The reason I did that, even though I could easily write a more modern and approachable permissive license than BSD-2-Clause, which is almost as old as I am, was to make automatic reversion back to open source terms very clear. The "patch" touches the header notice, and adds a third condition. The automatic waiver removes the new, third condition. That means BSD-2-Clause and some extra stuff in notice are left.
  - foo101 9y ago
    Really, what's with experienced HN users jumping to conclusions and writing comments without reading the entire post? The exact concern you raise in your comment is addressed at the bottom of the post!
    - nailer 9y ago
      - It's better to avoid making misleading comments in the first place rather than retroactively correcting them. - There's already been extensive discussion on this shared source license on Twitter in the last 24 hours. - The author keeps saying 'OSD compliant' rather than 'Open Source' as if there's another definition of Open Source other than the OSD. There isn't.
      - kemitchell 9y ago
        There is another definition: what developers mean and understand when they say and hear "open source". It isn't hard to find OSS developers who've never heard of OSD, or DFSG, or _What is free software?_, or once they have, care much about them. "Open Source" is part of their identity. As far as they're concerned, it belongs to them. There is also a difference between OSD conformance and OSI approval. That's been made very clear in the license-review thread for the License Zero Reciprocal Public License of late, and in many private conversations besides. The License Zero Noncommercial Public License was never meant to be "Open Source" as defined by OSI. It may be "open source" as developers use that term today. If the latter, I'm not sure _I'm_ happy about that. The reciprocal public license will be OSD-conformant. OSI may or may not approve it, on policy grounds. FSF may or may not opine that it's a Free Software license, or an ethical license. It may or may not be "open source" as developers use and understand that term today, or tomorrow. All of these brands, labels, categories, and border disputes matter so, so much less than the real, underlying problems in lining up support and compensation with contribution in software. If by breaking or smudging these categories, L0 creates a clearer line of sight through to those problems, I think that's great!
        nailer 9y ago
        > There is another definition: what developers mean and understand when they say and hear "open source". Sure, but those devs know that 'MIT' and 'GPL' and 'BSD' are Open Source, and that being able to license the source code for eg, Windows, doesn't make Windows Open Source.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > There are issues with this, but on the latter point: why are the GNU and OSI models an unquestionable religion? The FSF Free Software and OSI Open Source definitions are the products of significant consideration of the logical impacts and experience of the practical impacts of software licensing (the former more heavily on the abstract, the latter on he practical, but interestingly they end up essentially identical.) As such, deviations from those models that assert that they are both retaining the benefits and curing problems inherent to the models, while certainly not implausible, do call for careful examination.
mirabilos 9y ago
Nor is it Ⓕ Copyfree compatible, and none of the BSDs would ever touch it either. So that leaves you with adaption by unwashed unorganised masses who wouldn’t care about licence terms at all.

This seems well intentioned but poorly thought out. Also, software distributed under this license does not qualify as free software under the GNU _or_ OSI models.

schoen 9y ago

The FSF and OSI models are meant to cover the same class of software (for example, both explicitly accept both copyleft and permissively-licensed software). So far I believe they've disagreed about the status of a total of two licenses, which are rarely used.

api 9y ago

There are issues with this, but on the latter point: why are the GNU and OSI models an unquestionable religion? Do they work? Are they achieving their stated objectives? Why can't we question them?

nailer 9y ago
They're not, but it's important to distinguish Open Source from other types of licenses, and avoid statements like: > License Zero is based on the two-clause BSD License, a classic permissive Open Source license, with two key additions: > Commercial use is limited to 90 days Which makes it seem like this is Open Source when it isn't.
- kemitchell 9y ago
  The "Departure" section of the manifesto addresses very directly that the patch to BSD-2-Clause takes it out of the Open Source Definition: > According to The Open Source Definition, discriminating against commerce and non-contributors is not “Open Source”. The Definition also prohibits discrimination against “fields of endeavor”, like commerce, and persons and groups, like non-contributors. That means License Zero is no longer an Open Source license, even if it remains remarkably generous, a public gift to charitable organizations, students, teachers, academics, and hobbyists everywhere. L0-NC derives from BSD-2-Clause to make transition back to OSD-conformant terms very clear.
  - orangecat 9y ago
    You're making it seem like it's just a technicality over definitions when it really is a fundamental difference. It explicitly rejects the "freedom zero" of open source, the freedom to actually run the software. It means that if I inadvertently download L0 software from npm at work, 91 days later my company is in violation of criminal copyright law. No open source license does that, not even AGPL. ("But you'd also be in violation if it were regular commercial software!" True, but in that case it wouldn't be on npm and I wouldn't have made that mistake). If you want to position L0 as a way for commercial software vendors to distribute source, that's fine. But I strongly object to the implication that it's just a "patch" on top of existing open source licenses.
    - kemitchell 9y ago
      It is a patch on top of an open source license, BSD-2-Clause. Legal terms aren't exactly like computer code, but the analogy works here. Unmodified BSD-2-Clause meets OSI's "test suite", the Open Source Definition, and FSF's test suite, "What is free software?". Patched, L0-NC fails both test suites. Passing isn't about provenance of the "raw material". It's about what the terms do. The reason I did that, even though I could easily write a more modern and approachable permissive license than BSD-2-Clause, which is almost as old as I am, was to make automatic reversion back to open source terms very clear. The "patch" touches the header notice, and adds a third condition. The automatic waiver removes the new, third condition. That means BSD-2-Clause and some extra stuff in notice are left.
- foo101 9y ago
  Really, what's with experienced HN users jumping to conclusions and writing comments without reading the entire post? The exact concern you raise in your comment is addressed at the bottom of the post!
  - nailer 9y ago
    - It's better to avoid making misleading comments in the first place rather than retroactively correcting them. - There's already been extensive discussion on this shared source license on Twitter in the last 24 hours. - The author keeps saying 'OSD compliant' rather than 'Open Source' as if there's another definition of Open Source other than the OSD. There isn't.
    - kemitchell 9y ago
      There is another definition: what developers mean and understand when they say and hear "open source". It isn't hard to find OSS developers who've never heard of OSD, or DFSG, or _What is free software?_, or once they have, care much about them. "Open Source" is part of their identity. As far as they're concerned, it belongs to them. There is also a difference between OSD conformance and OSI approval. That's been made very clear in the license-review thread for the License Zero Reciprocal Public License of late, and in many private conversations besides. The License Zero Noncommercial Public License was never meant to be "Open Source" as defined by OSI. It may be "open source" as developers use that term today. If the latter, I'm not sure _I'm_ happy about that. The reciprocal public license will be OSD-conformant. OSI may or may not approve it, on policy grounds. FSF may or may not opine that it's a Free Software license, or an ethical license. It may or may not be "open source" as developers use and understand that term today, or tomorrow. All of these brands, labels, categories, and border disputes matter so, so much less than the real, underlying problems in lining up support and compensation with contribution in software. If by breaking or smudging these categories, L0 creates a clearer line of sight through to those problems, I think that's great!
      - nailer 9y ago
        > There is another definition: what developers mean and understand when they say and hear "open source". Sure, but those devs know that 'MIT' and 'GPL' and 'BSD' are Open Source, and that being able to license the source code for eg, Windows, doesn't make Windows Open Source.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> There are issues with this, but on the latter point: why are the GNU and OSI models an unquestionable religion? The FSF Free Software and OSI Open Source definitions are the products of significant consideration of the logical impacts and experience of the practical impacts of software licensing (the former more heavily on the abstract, the latter on he practical, but interestingly they end up essentially identical.) As such, deviations from those models that assert that they are both retaining the benefits and curing problems inherent to the models, while certainly not implausible, do call for careful examination.

mirabilos 9y ago

Nor is it Ⓕ Copyfree compatible, and none of the BSDs would ever touch it either. So that leaves you with adaption by unwashed unorganised masses who wouldn’t care about licence terms at all.