4 ms·

Since there appears to be interest (hurrah!), some highlights from the thread: Perens: "There are already too many Open Source licenses. If we never accepted a

Since there appears to be interest (hurrah!), some highlights from the thread: Perens: "There are already too many Open Source licenses. If we never accepted another, that would not be a particularly bad thing." http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003371.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... Mitchell: "Plain English legal drafting is making inspiring headway, as a craft. Open source licensing shouldn't cut itself out of the benefits." http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003372.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... Tzeng: "It strikes me that there's no real reason for the rest of us to bother being here if the "old hands" decide what to do regardless of the consensus of the list. Evidently any license submission can be delayed indefinitely." http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003375.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... Randall: "But, one thing open source and free software have demonstrated is that chaotic, rowdy groups of humans can accomplish amazing things together, even despite (and sometimes because of) all their imperfections. Please be patient with us, but persistent. I promise you will get an answer." http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003410.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... Perens: "There aren't that many actually useful variations on the licenses that actually pass the OSD. There are actually only three useful licenses, a gift-style, a sharing-with-rules-style, and something in between. Given Affero and GPL3 terms on those three, essentially all purposes for Open Source can be carried out. All else is embellishment." http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003413.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... Villa: "I'm pretty sure that, contra Bruce, it isn't OSI's position that open source needs to stay forever trapped in amber, but a reasonable outside observer (like Kyle!) could certainly conclude otherwise." http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003418.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... Fontana: "I'm generally struck by how conservative, technically and perhaps legally clueless and hidebound contemporary proprietary software license agreements tend to be - though not in the same way as open source licenses, which are vulnerable to similar criticisms." http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003419.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... Perens (quoting): " > A bolder new license might consider: What does an economically viable open source look like? My usual answer for this is that if you have to ask how you're going to make money, you're the wrong person to make Open Source. Nowhere in the mission of OSI is any mandate to provide authors with a viable business method." http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003423.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... Mitchell: "Hacker-types still favor MIT/BSD over Apache 2.0. Facebook followed suit after the PATENTS tragicomedy. If you don't trust FSF---or OSI for that matter---and you don't have a legal department large enough for an open licensing wonk, you want a license you can read. You want a purpose-built tool that directly expresses your purpose, and little more." http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003425.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... Perens: "We are asking of you only one thing. Go forth and use your license. We are not stopping you. Just don't call it Open Source." http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-June/003426.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o...

andrewbinstock 8y ago
Open source licensing is vastly too complicated. IMHO it needs a menu-like system similar to the Creative Commons options. I think OSI should bite the bullet and lead the way on this change: work with the community to define the options and then say that all future licenses will use the menu system.
kemitchell 8y ago
FYI: The "Mitchell" quoted above and the "Kyle" mentioned above are the same dog.
MrBingley 8y ago
> My usual answer for this is that if you have to ask how you're going to make money, you're the wrong person to make Open Source. Nowhere in the mission of OSI is any mandate to provide authors with a viable business method. Indeed, it is a principle of open source that people can freeload off your work. As soon as an author restricts their work to non-commercial use or commercial-with-a-fee (which is entirely reasonable), it is no longer considered "open source". > We are asking of you only one thing. Go forth and use your license. We are not stopping you. Just don't call it Open Source. Go ahead, call it open source. The OSI has no trademark over the term, and the idea that their narrow definition is the only "official" one is a load of crap. There is plenty of room for what constitutes open source that doesn't fall underneath their umbrella. Edit: I understand this opinion is controversial. If you disagree, please comment and explain why.
- kemitchell 8y ago
  > Indeed, it is a principle of open source that people can freeload off your work. As soon as an author restricts their work to non-commercial use or commercial-with-a-fee (which is entirely reasonable), it is no longer considered "open source". I'd challenge that. Under copyleft and other "share-alike" or "reciprocal" licenses, loading isn't free for everyone, in particular those who create software. There's a cost in sharing source and rights for new code. I think the community as a whole has forgotten that, because copyleft licenses have fallen behind the times. With a glaring, unpatched vulnerability like the ASP loophole affecting most copyleft code, the terms of the licenses no longer implement the deal their authors wanted to make. Which is why I proposed the license in the second quote you pulled.

andrewbinstock 8y ago

Open source licensing is vastly too complicated. IMHO it needs a menu-like system similar to the Creative Commons options. I think OSI should bite the bullet and lead the way on this change: work with the community to define the options and then say that all future licenses will use the menu system.

kemitchell 8y ago

FYI: The "Mitchell" quoted above and the "Kyle" mentioned above are the same dog.

MrBingley 8y ago

> My usual answer for this is that if you have to ask how you're going to make money, you're the wrong person to make Open Source. Nowhere in the mission of OSI is any mandate to provide authors with a viable business method. Indeed, it is a principle of open source that people can freeload off your work. As soon as an author restricts their work to non-commercial use or commercial-with-a-fee (which is entirely reasonable), it is no longer considered "open source". > We are asking of you only one thing. Go forth and use your license. We are not stopping you. Just don't call it Open Source. Go ahead, call it open source. The OSI has no trademark over the term, and the idea that their narrow definition is the only "official" one is a load of crap. There is plenty of room for what constitutes open source that doesn't fall underneath their umbrella. Edit: I understand this opinion is controversial. If you disagree, please comment and explain why.

kemitchell 8y ago
> Indeed, it is a principle of open source that people can freeload off your work. As soon as an author restricts their work to non-commercial use or commercial-with-a-fee (which is entirely reasonable), it is no longer considered "open source". I'd challenge that. Under copyleft and other "share-alike" or "reciprocal" licenses, loading isn't free for everyone, in particular those who create software. There's a cost in sharing source and rights for new code. I think the community as a whole has forgotten that, because copyleft licenses have fallen behind the times. With a glaring, unpatched vulnerability like the ASP loophole affecting most copyleft code, the terms of the licenses no longer implement the deal their authors wanted to make. Which is why I proposed the license in the second quote you pulled.