4 ms·

I don't think the Clause is necessarily the most elegant end-all solution, but there are often broad business, timing and legal requirements that make it really

by XiZhao 8y ago

I don't think the Clause is necessarily the most elegant end-all solution, but there are often broad business, timing and legal requirements that make it really hard to draft a full license to satisfy everyone. In fact, I'd love to see a v2 standalone license. One of the design constraints was size and readability. I think part of the goal here was to start with something extremely short-form. More broadly, the average OSS license is far from robust.

justinjlynn 8y ago
> More broadly, the average OSS license is far from robust. Care to elaborate? That is an extremely broad claim. The GPL has been upheld a number of times. The MIT/BSD licences are about as simple and solid as they get. > I think part of the goal here was to start with something extremely short-form. Yes, but to your point above, courts rarely appreciate schizophrenic agreements which say one thing in one place and an entirely different thing elsewhere. How is X Open Source + Common Clause any different than the Redis^e + X hosting/brand piggybacking others have been doing to RedisLabs?
Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
Most OSS licenses are actually very robust, but they all support the four essential freedoms - which you are specifically attempting to undermine.
Bartweiss 8y ago
> More broadly, the average OSS license is far from robust. Like several people here, I'd really appreciate clarification on this. The average OSS license doesn't apply to some use cases, but in every case I know that's intentional; they're uses that don't uphold the four freedoms. There are a handful of outstanding issues like Google's allergy to AGPL, but the GPL and MIT licenses are well-tested and accepted. I've regularly used them personally and professionally without any confusion or trouble at all. If there's a flaw or weakness in these licenses, people are obviously eager to hear about it. If they simply don't support restricting downstream rights, that's by design and I think "far from robust" is a thoroughly unfair way of framing the situation.
jahewson 8y ago
> More broadly, the average OSS license is far from robust. This is pure FUD.

by XiZhao 8y ago

justinjlynn 8y ago

> More broadly, the average OSS license is far from robust. Care to elaborate? That is an extremely broad claim. The GPL has been upheld a number of times. The MIT/BSD licences are about as simple and solid as they get. > I think part of the goal here was to start with something extremely short-form. Yes, but to your point above, courts rarely appreciate schizophrenic agreements which say one thing in one place and an entirely different thing elsewhere. How is X Open Source + Common Clause any different than the Redis^e + X hosting/brand piggybacking others have been doing to RedisLabs?

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

Most OSS licenses are actually very robust, but they all support the four essential freedoms - which you are specifically attempting to undermine.

Bartweiss 8y ago

> More broadly, the average OSS license is far from robust. Like several people here, I'd really appreciate clarification on this. The average OSS license doesn't apply to some use cases, but in every case I know that's intentional; they're uses that don't uphold the four freedoms. There are a handful of outstanding issues like Google's allergy to AGPL, but the GPL and MIT licenses are well-tested and accepted. I've regularly used them personally and professionally without any confusion or trouble at all. If there's a flaw or weakness in these licenses, people are obviously eager to hear about it. If they simply don't support restricting downstream rights, that's by design and I think "far from robust" is a thoroughly unfair way of framing the situation.

jahewson 8y ago

> More broadly, the average OSS license is far from robust. This is pure FUD.