4 ms·

I'd say as strongly copy left as possible, although that will inevitably bring with it some restrictions for users. Parity ( https://paritylicense.com/ https://

by _frkl 7y ago

I'd say as strongly copy left as possible, although that will inevitably bring with it some restrictions for users. Parity ( https://paritylicense.com/ https://paritylicense.com/ ) is my favourite at the moment (created by the blog posts author). It's interesting in that it doesn't try to prescribe the license downstream projects use as long as it's free (in contrast to for example GPL) but is, at the same time, very strict in regards to when it applies (basically every time Parity-licensed code 'touches' non-free software), which means there is no Saas loophole for example.

StavrosK 7y ago
That's an interesting license, thanks! I would have liked some examples about what exactly it does, because reading the text doesn't make all the ramifications clear, but it looks promising.
- _frkl 7y ago
  If some of the text is unclear, you can submit an issue on the license' GitHub repository. Kyle (the creator of the license) considers this an issue with the license, and is very open to improve the text to eliminate any such issues readers have.
  - StavrosK 7y ago
    I will, thanks. It's not unclear in a legal way, just in a human "what can my users/forkers/etc do with this license" way (which may still be a valid issue to open).
type0 7y ago
Isn't Parity License a source-available share-alike freeware license? It seems very different from GPL and even the ideas by which copyleft was originated.
- _frkl 7y ago
  Would you care to elaborate? To me, it seems very much in the 'spirit' of what GPL set out to do back when, updated to eliminate issues that weren't/couldn't have been forseen. Parity is not perfect (yet), but to me it's the most viable attempt at a modern copyleft license to date. Technically, one can argue Parity is not 'open source', if one acknowledges that only OSI approved licenses should be called 'open source'. I don't, and quite a few other folk don't either. Lots of people do, though.
  - type0 7y ago
    To me it seems very unclear what this license means in practical terms. It mentions that contributions are needed unless it's prototype but definitions on what it means isn't there. Can you operate gmail-type of service, call it beta and not release the code for many years because it's "used for for non-production user testing"?

by _frkl 7y ago

StavrosK 7y ago

That's an interesting license, thanks! I would have liked some examples about what exactly it does, because reading the text doesn't make all the ramifications clear, but it looks promising.

_frkl 7y ago
If some of the text is unclear, you can submit an issue on the license' GitHub repository. Kyle (the creator of the license) considers this an issue with the license, and is very open to improve the text to eliminate any such issues readers have.
- StavrosK 7y ago
  I will, thanks. It's not unclear in a legal way, just in a human "what can my users/forkers/etc do with this license" way (which may still be a valid issue to open).

type0 7y ago

Isn't Parity License a source-available share-alike freeware license? It seems very different from GPL and even the ideas by which copyleft was originated.

_frkl 7y ago
Would you care to elaborate? To me, it seems very much in the 'spirit' of what GPL set out to do back when, updated to eliminate issues that weren't/couldn't have been forseen. Parity is not perfect (yet), but to me it's the most viable attempt at a modern copyleft license to date. Technically, one can argue Parity is not 'open source', if one acknowledges that only OSI approved licenses should be called 'open source'. I don't, and quite a few other folk don't either. Lots of people do, though.
- type0 7y ago
  To me it seems very unclear what this license means in practical terms. It mentions that contributions are needed unless it's prototype but definitions on what it means isn't there. Can you operate gmail-type of service, call it beta and not release the code for many years because it's "used for for non-production user testing"?