4 ms·
> There are nice diagrams showing "source available" > separate from "open source". That's good, because it's not open-source and is therefore proprietary. B
by 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.