6 ms·

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...
      - JoshTriplett 8y ago
        > So, you're using the technical definition of open source from that organization instead of the popular one I was using. The OSD is the popular, widely used definition, as opposed to simply "source available". In general, I've found a roughly 100% correlation between people who try to say that "open source" should mean something other than the OSD and people who have a vested interest in pushing something that the OSD wouldn't permit. > The goal of copyleft is supposed to get modifications shared. Under an open source license. Otherwise it's just an incompatible proprietary ecosystem that happens to encourage sharing within its walls. That doesn't help or contribute to the open source community at all. > They need to update their requirements to match reality Proprietary software vendors come and go, and they often think that the requirements should change to accommodate them. The world goes on, and people whose requirements include open source licensing continue to ignore software that doesn't meet those requirements. This is not new; there has been a steady progression of custom non-open licenses that try to blur the line for just about as long as FOSS has existed. Long before there was "commons clause" and "license zero" there was Microsoft's "shared source". It failed then, and it'll fail now. I've already seen a number of conferences this year with talks on the agenda about the problems of non-open licenses that attempt to pretend to be open, and how to work around them. Regarding the comments you linked to, "License Zero" is even more blatantly non-open. And multiple people already provided detailed issues with those comments, to which I have little more to add. "open source" is a bright true/false line for a reason, much like "non-toxic" or "food safe". If you want to build something proprietary, go ahead, but trying to pretend it's open is harmful FUD.
  - bb88 8y ago
    https://opensource.org/faq https://opensource.org/faq Can I call my program "Open Source" even if I don't use an approved license? Please don't do that. If you call it "Open Source" without using an approved license, you will confuse people. This is not merely a theoretical concern — we have seen this confusion happen in the past, and it's part of the reason we have a formal license approval process. See also our page on license proliferation for why this is a problem. Is <SOME LICENSE> an Open Source license, even if it is not listed on your web site? In general, no. We run all licenses through an approval process to provide an accepted standard on which licenses are Open Source, and we list the approved ones. Be dubious of claimed Open Source-ness for licenses that haven't gone through the process. See also the license proliferation page for why this matters so much.
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...

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...
    - JoshTriplett 8y ago
      > So, you're using the technical definition of open source from that organization instead of the popular one I was using. The OSD is the popular, widely used definition, as opposed to simply "source available". In general, I've found a roughly 100% correlation between people who try to say that "open source" should mean something other than the OSD and people who have a vested interest in pushing something that the OSD wouldn't permit. > The goal of copyleft is supposed to get modifications shared. Under an open source license. Otherwise it's just an incompatible proprietary ecosystem that happens to encourage sharing within its walls. That doesn't help or contribute to the open source community at all. > They need to update their requirements to match reality Proprietary software vendors come and go, and they often think that the requirements should change to accommodate them. The world goes on, and people whose requirements include open source licensing continue to ignore software that doesn't meet those requirements. This is not new; there has been a steady progression of custom non-open licenses that try to blur the line for just about as long as FOSS has existed. Long before there was "commons clause" and "license zero" there was Microsoft's "shared source". It failed then, and it'll fail now. I've already seen a number of conferences this year with talks on the agenda about the problems of non-open licenses that attempt to pretend to be open, and how to work around them. Regarding the comments you linked to, "License Zero" is even more blatantly non-open. And multiple people already provided detailed issues with those comments, to which I have little more to add. "open source" is a bright true/false line for a reason, much like "non-toxic" or "food safe". If you want to build something proprietary, go ahead, but trying to pretend it's open is harmful FUD.
- bb88 8y ago
  https://opensource.org/faq https://opensource.org/faq Can I call my program "Open Source" even if I don't use an approved license? Please don't do that. If you call it "Open Source" without using an approved license, you will confuse people. This is not merely a theoretical concern — we have seen this confusion happen in the past, and it's part of the reason we have a formal license approval process. See also our page on license proliferation for why this is a problem. Is <SOME LICENSE> an Open Source license, even if it is not listed on your web site? In general, no. We run all licenses through an approval process to provide an accepted standard on which licenses are Open Source, and we list the approved ones. Be dubious of claimed Open Source-ness for licenses that haven't gone through the process. See also the license proliferation page for why this matters so much.

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...