4 ms·
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
by 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.