5 ms·

Sounds like an ad for this new Blue Oak licence. I don't have any problems with ads but I think the article should be a little more objective about the comparis

by bibyte 8y ago

Sounds like an ad for this new Blue Oak licence. I don't have any problems with ads but I think the article should be a little more objective about the comparison. Also that's a pretty bold title.

scrollaway 8y ago
I would also have dismissed the article given how much it seems to advertise Blue Oak, but Mitchell is a good "argument from authority" on licenses. More info on Blue Oak: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/07/Blue-Oak-Council.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/07/Blue-Oak-Council.h...
- kemitchell 8y ago
  Don't take a word I say "on authority". Read the license. Read what others say about it. Read about the law. Apply your mind.
  - fanf2 8y ago
    It isn’t listed as an Open Source licence which rules it out for most purposes. https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
    - majewsky 8y ago
      To be fair, it appears to have hit 1.0 just hours ago, so this may just mean that OSI doesn't know about it yet.
      - latk 8y ago
        OSI generally requires that the license steward/author submits the license for review if they want it to be approved. Upon being asked about this by OSI President Simon Phipps, Kyle Mitchell responded that Blue Oak has no plans to seek approval (https://twitter.com/kemitchell/status/1104579340732264448 https://twitter.com/kemitchell/status/1104579340732264448). I would have found anything else surprising, given that last month Mitchell had this to say about the OSI (in the context of SSPL review): > I've lost confidence in this body's ability to make rigorous decisions, or even facilitate focused debate, […]. So I've otherwise stopped responding, and focused my efforts where collective time and talent have hope of yielding practical results. Source: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-February/003978.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... Context: https://opensource.org/LicenseReview022019 https://opensource.org/LicenseReview022019

by bibyte 8y ago

Sounds like an ad for this new Blue Oak licence. I don't have any problems with ads but I think the article should be a little more objective about the comparison. Also that's a pretty bold title.

scrollaway 8y ago

I would also have dismissed the article given how much it seems to advertise Blue Oak, but Mitchell is a good "argument from authority" on licenses. More info on Blue Oak: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/07/Blue-Oak-Council.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/03/07/Blue-Oak-Council.h...

kemitchell 8y ago
Don't take a word I say "on authority". Read the license. Read what others say about it. Read about the law. Apply your mind.
- fanf2 8y ago
  It isn’t listed as an Open Source licence which rules it out for most purposes. https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
  - majewsky 8y ago
    To be fair, it appears to have hit 1.0 just hours ago, so this may just mean that OSI doesn't know about it yet.
    - latk 8y ago
      OSI generally requires that the license steward/author submits the license for review if they want it to be approved. Upon being asked about this by OSI President Simon Phipps, Kyle Mitchell responded that Blue Oak has no plans to seek approval (https://twitter.com/kemitchell/status/1104579340732264448 https://twitter.com/kemitchell/status/1104579340732264448). I would have found anything else surprising, given that last month Mitchell had this to say about the OSI (in the context of SSPL review): > I've lost confidence in this body's ability to make rigorous decisions, or even facilitate focused debate, […]. So I've otherwise stopped responding, and focused my efforts where collective time and talent have hope of yielding practical results. Source: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-February/003978.html http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.o... Context: https://opensource.org/LicenseReview022019 https://opensource.org/LicenseReview022019