3 ms·
This is a critique of shared source licenses that are forks of open source ones (like BSD), but with no-compete clauses attached, which as the author argues, hu
by bad_user 8y ago
This is a critique of shared source licenses that are forks of open source ones (like BSD), but with no-compete clauses attached, which as the author argues, hurt the OSS ecosystem and don’t serve their intended purpose.
I happen to agree very much with the article.
The Open Source and Free Software ecosystems are under attack by companies that want to eat their cake and have it too. There’s never been a stronger need for defending their definitions as pushed forward by OSI and the FSF respectively.
- ghaff 8y agoI think there's a place for a reasoned discussion around open source licensing and freedoms in today's environment, which is quite different from the one that spawned the original GPL. While the OSI definition of open source has stood the test of time fairly well, I don't think we should rule out thoughtful conversation about the topic. On the other hand, I thought we already had that discussion at some level with the AGPL which has had no meaningful impact. What seems clear to me is that a bunch of one-off proprietary licenses that pretend to be open source--but are not by the current open source definition--is not an appropriate path forward.
- Fnoord 8y agoAren't such clauses illegal in California (where SV resides)?
- MaxBarraclough 8y agoThe FSF used to use the term "semifree software" for this kind of thing, but they now prefer to just go with non-free ( https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.en.html )