4 ms·

Mayhaps read the article? It covers why this is a very dangerous way of thinking that is destroying the non-corporate open source community. Here's the relevan

by antt 8y ago

Mayhaps read the article? It covers why this is a very dangerous way of thinking that is destroying the non-corporate open source community. Here's the relevant part: <quote> In the end, license experiments are a threat, but not a threat to open source as defined. They’re a threat to what open source sought, as a movement: recognition and collaboration with business concerns producing proprietary software. Patches to existing licenses and license ideas don’t change how effective unpatched terms remain for other work. Rather, innovation threatens the symbiosis of open source orthodoxy and enterprise-procurement-bound proprietary consumption. Holding permission back reduces what the shepherds of open source can lead back to large company-consumers. Offering a compelling middle way that better balances concerns for smaller players reduces the number of projects that end up under pushover licenses, for lack of better-fitting options, ready for selective assimilation by big-company incumbents. Incumbents that prefer outlast and out-compete to contribute and compensate, when it comes to projects not invented here. </quote> >Your software would then be proprietary software, not open-source, even if the entire source repository was public. This view reminds me of the bad old debate about the fact that GPL was not an open source license. "How can it be open if it forces me to do thing I don't like? The only open license is the MIT license.". A more or less verbatim quote from the 00s on why Linux was doomed and should be classed as proprietary software.

jmillikin 8y ago
I did read the article, twice. It's the article's job to explain how their proprietary license is compatible with the open-source definition, and it does not do so, because it can't.
- antt 8y ago
  You're being very terse and confrontational. What is your definition of open source? If you go by the definition provided by the Open Source Initiative the following section means the GPL isn't an open license because it requires all software linked to it to be provided under the GPL too: <quote> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. </quote> https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - detaro 8y ago
    GPL does not place restrictions on software that is distributed along with a GPL licensed piece of software. It places restrictions on software it is combined with.
  - jmillikin 8y ago
    I am using the definition you linked to: The OSI's definition. > If you go by the definition provided by the Open Source > Initiative the following section means the GPL isn't an > open license because it requires all software linked to > it to be provided under the GPL too: This is not correct, and your own quote from the OSI site does not support your assertion. The GPL does not require that all portions of a derived work come from GPL'd code, and even if it did, that would not violate the OSI definition (which deals with combining works together for storage + transmission). I don't know why you think the GPL isn't an open-source license, when it's listed prominently on https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses as OSI-approved.
- kemitchell 8y ago
  License Zero has two public licenses, but the article covers React PATENTS, Commons Clause, Lerna MIT, Fair Source, JSON, HESSLA, and maybe a few others. There are nice diagrams showing "source available" separate from "open source". I don't claim that any noncommercial license meets the OSD. I have and do argue my strong-copyleft license meets that definition, and acknowledge that's controversial. Nobody, and crucially no legal right, makes it anybody's job to argue to the OSD. That is purely elective.
  - jmillikin 8y ago
    > There are nice diagrams showing "source available" > separate from "open source". That's good, because it's not open-source and is therefore proprietary. But also confusing, because if you're not claiming your license is open-source, then what exactly is the "third way in open software" from the title? First way: Highly permissive licenses such as ISC, BSD, and Apache. Second way: Copyleft licenses such as GPL and AGPL. Third way: ?
    - kemitchell 8y ago
      > because it's not open-source and is therefore proprietary For reasons I point out in the post, I consider that implication harmful. The third way referred to in the post is source-available software. Others may or may not include software under stronger-than-strong copyleft or reciprocal licenses, like my Parity or OSI-approved RPL, in that category.

by antt 8y ago

jmillikin 8y ago

I did read the article, twice. It's the article's job to explain how their proprietary license is compatible with the open-source definition, and it does not do so, because it can't.

antt 8y ago
You're being very terse and confrontational. What is your definition of open source? If you go by the definition provided by the Open Source Initiative the following section means the GPL isn't an open license because it requires all software linked to it to be provided under the GPL too: <quote> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. </quote> https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- detaro 8y ago
  GPL does not place restrictions on software that is distributed along with a GPL licensed piece of software. It places restrictions on software it is combined with.
- jmillikin 8y ago
  I am using the definition you linked to: The OSI's definition. > If you go by the definition provided by the Open Source > Initiative the following section means the GPL isn't an > open license because it requires all software linked to > it to be provided under the GPL too: This is not correct, and your own quote from the OSI site does not support your assertion. The GPL does not require that all portions of a derived work come from GPL'd code, and even if it did, that would not violate the OSI definition (which deals with combining works together for storage + transmission). I don't know why you think the GPL isn't an open-source license, when it's listed prominently on https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses as OSI-approved.
kemitchell 8y ago
License Zero has two public licenses, but the article covers React PATENTS, Commons Clause, Lerna MIT, Fair Source, JSON, HESSLA, and maybe a few others. There are nice diagrams showing "source available" separate from "open source". I don't claim that any noncommercial license meets the OSD. I have and do argue my strong-copyleft license meets that definition, and acknowledge that's controversial. Nobody, and crucially no legal right, makes it anybody's job to argue to the OSD. That is purely elective.
- jmillikin 8y ago
  > There are nice diagrams showing "source available" > separate from "open source". That's good, because it's not open-source and is therefore proprietary. But also confusing, because if you're not claiming your license is open-source, then what exactly is the "third way in open software" from the title? First way: Highly permissive licenses such as ISC, BSD, and Apache. Second way: Copyleft licenses such as GPL and AGPL. Third way: ?
  - kemitchell 8y ago
    > because it's not open-source and is therefore proprietary For reasons I point out in the post, I consider that implication harmful. The third way referred to in the post is source-available software. Others may or may not include software under stronger-than-strong copyleft or reciprocal licenses, like my Parity or OSI-approved RPL, in that category.