4 ms·

> megacap open source company Isn't this by itself an oxymoron? Open source isn't shouldn't be one's marketing stunt to gain attention, if you want to charge y

> megacap open source company Isn't this by itself an oxymoron? Open source isn't shouldn't be one's marketing stunt to gain attention, if you want to charge your software make it proprietary and charge people for license. Using open source as a last resort bait isn't cool. My only jab at Amazon is that they should give back their code to the community or they need to be forced to do so, not that they can't make money from OSS software, if that is what license at the time, permits.

p10_user 8y ago
> Isn't this by itself an oxymoron? Presumably that's why, in the words of the parent poster, the dream is dead.
nickpsecurity 8y ago
The problem is the licenses suck. Parity and Prosper solve these problems with Parity covering your use case: https://licensezero.com/ https://licensezero.com/
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  Those aren't Open Source licenses, so that's the same as the suggestion in the parent comment to make the software proprietary and charge for licenses.
  - nickpsecurity 8y ago
    Parity is an open source license that should achieve the goal of contribution sharing better than the others since it's wording focuses on changes, not distribution models. https://licensezero.com/licenses/parity https://licensezero.com/licenses/parity It also has a patent license, unlike many permissive ones. They shouldnt even qualify as open source if you can get sued under patent law for using that software. Need some patent protection in license.
    - JoshTriplett 8y ago
      > Parity is an open source license No, it isn't: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical A few issues: > 3. Contribute software you develop, deploy, monitor, or run with this software. That goes farther than the OSI, FSF, or DFSG allows, extending into software that is not in any way derived from the licensed software. It's also not obvious from the license that it allows private modifications that aren't distributed to anyone. > To contribute software, publish all its source code, in the preferred form for making changes, through a freely accessible distribution system widely used for similar source code This requires that you publish your code publicly, rather than just providing it to those you provide binaries to.
      - kemitchell 8y ago
        license-review deja vu! To recite my views: Parity conforms to the Open Source Definition as written. "Is it open source?" and "Has OSI approved it?" are related, but distinct, questions, as acknowledged by OSI process. OSI-approved copyleft licenses already sweep broader than derivative works of the licensed software. OSI has approved copyleft terms requiring contribution back of private changes.
        bradrydzewski 8y ago
        Have you considered submitting for OSI approval?
      - nickpsecurity 8y ago
        Ok. So, you're using the technical definition of open source from that organization instead of the popular one I was using. That's fine. The goal of copyleft is supposed to get modifications shared. Parity does it better than any popular license. They all screwed up allowing people to dodge their goal. So, I'd say Parity is better at making open and free software than all of those. They need to update their requirements to match reality or just get results they say they're after. That's less important than another realization I've had since we last talked about licenses. I've determined that most OSS/FOSS licenses actually oppose freedom in practice. You get less software freedom and high-quality software with source over time following those models due to their built-in weaknesses. I wrote specifics in one comment and a follow-up replying to Cantrill's recent analysis: https://lobste.rs/s/0h98nl/it_s_not_okay_pretend_your_software_is_open#c_zim2ks https://lobste.rs/s/0h98nl/it_s_not_okay_pretend_your_softwa... https://lobste.rs/s/kbcjnx/open_source_confronts_its_midlife_crisis#c_yokqtn https://lobste.rs/s/kbcjnx/open_source_confronts_its_midlife...
- kemitchell 8y ago
  I recently published my first, draft attempt at an SSPL-style license, too: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/01/12/Shared-Component-License.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/01/12/Shared-Component-L...
LudoA 8y ago
Don't think it has to be an oxymoron. Look at Red Hat: fully 100% open source code, but a multi-billion $ revenue.

p10_user 8y ago

> Isn't this by itself an oxymoron? Presumably that's why, in the words of the parent poster, the dream is dead.

nickpsecurity 8y ago

The problem is the licenses suck. Parity and Prosper solve these problems with Parity covering your use case: https://licensezero.com/ https://licensezero.com/

JoshTriplett 8y ago
Those aren't Open Source licenses, so that's the same as the suggestion in the parent comment to make the software proprietary and charge for licenses.
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  Parity is an open source license that should achieve the goal of contribution sharing better than the others since it's wording focuses on changes, not distribution models. https://licensezero.com/licenses/parity https://licensezero.com/licenses/parity It also has a patent license, unlike many permissive ones. They shouldnt even qualify as open source if you can get sued under patent law for using that software. Need some patent protection in license.
  - JoshTriplett 8y ago
    > Parity is an open source license No, it isn't: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical A few issues: > 3. Contribute software you develop, deploy, monitor, or run with this software. That goes farther than the OSI, FSF, or DFSG allows, extending into software that is not in any way derived from the licensed software. It's also not obvious from the license that it allows private modifications that aren't distributed to anyone. > To contribute software, publish all its source code, in the preferred form for making changes, through a freely accessible distribution system widely used for similar source code This requires that you publish your code publicly, rather than just providing it to those you provide binaries to.
    - kemitchell 8y ago
      license-review deja vu! To recite my views: Parity conforms to the Open Source Definition as written. "Is it open source?" and "Has OSI approved it?" are related, but distinct, questions, as acknowledged by OSI process. OSI-approved copyleft licenses already sweep broader than derivative works of the licensed software. OSI has approved copyleft terms requiring contribution back of private changes.
      - bradrydzewski 8y ago
        Have you considered submitting for OSI approval?
    - nickpsecurity 8y ago
      Ok. So, you're using the technical definition of open source from that organization instead of the popular one I was using. That's fine. The goal of copyleft is supposed to get modifications shared. Parity does it better than any popular license. They all screwed up allowing people to dodge their goal. So, I'd say Parity is better at making open and free software than all of those. They need to update their requirements to match reality or just get results they say they're after. That's less important than another realization I've had since we last talked about licenses. I've determined that most OSS/FOSS licenses actually oppose freedom in practice. You get less software freedom and high-quality software with source over time following those models due to their built-in weaknesses. I wrote specifics in one comment and a follow-up replying to Cantrill's recent analysis: https://lobste.rs/s/0h98nl/it_s_not_okay_pretend_your_software_is_open#c_zim2ks https://lobste.rs/s/0h98nl/it_s_not_okay_pretend_your_softwa... https://lobste.rs/s/kbcjnx/open_source_confronts_its_midlife_crisis#c_yokqtn https://lobste.rs/s/kbcjnx/open_source_confronts_its_midlife...
kemitchell 8y ago
I recently published my first, draft attempt at an SSPL-style license, too: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/01/12/Shared-Component-License.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/01/12/Shared-Component-L...

LudoA 8y ago

Don't think it has to be an oxymoron. Look at Red Hat: fully 100% open source code, but a multi-billion $ revenue.