6 ms·

They mention it in one of the lines of this blog, but apparently this individual (perhaps with the help of others, it wasn't clear) has come up with two of thei

They mention it in one of the lines of this blog, but apparently this individual (perhaps with the help of others, it wasn't clear) has come up with two of their own software licenses, with a website and everything. https://guide.licensezero.com/ https://guide.licensezero.com/ > The Prosperity Public License (Prosperity) works a bit like a Creative Commons NonCommercial license, but for software. Prosperity gives everyone broad permission to use your software, but limits commercial use to a short trial period of 32 days. When a commercial user’s trial runs out, they need to buy a private license or stop using your software. > The Parity Public License (Parity) works a bit like AGPL, but requires users to release more of their own code, in more situations. Parity requires users who change, build on, or use your work to create software to release that software as open source, too. If users can’t or won’t release their work, they need to buy a private license that allows use without sharing back. I'm one of those folks that usually defaults to AGPL for their open source work for practical reasons - it's much easier to go from a copyleft license to a permissive one due to circumstance than the other way around. However, I always found it a bit strange that there were dozens of variants of the MIT and BSD license out there, but aside from the GPL and MPL no other popular license really took up the mantle of copyleft, aside from perhaps the old Sleepycat license. This looks like a very appealing license on its face, but the fact that it's specifically _not_ written in legalese is a little weird, though the fact that the author is a lawyer is some reassurance.

kemitchell 7y ago
I am in fact the prime mover behind License Zero (https://licensezero.com https://licensezero.com), but I am by no means alone in it. Parity and Prosperity would not be what they are without enormous amounts of feedback and suggestions from users and interested hackers. Some of those folks agreed to be listed here: https://licensezero.com/thanks https://licensezero.com/thanks There may be more copyleft licenses than you think. Blue Oak Council, in which I'm also involved, recently published this resource: https://blueoakcouncil.org/copyleft#copyleft-families https://blueoakcouncil.org/copyleft#copyleft-families That being said, you're absolutely right that we've seen more permissive licenses than copyleft license, by simple count. Compare: https://blueoakcouncil.org/list https://blueoakcouncil.org/list
naniwaduni 7y ago
> However, I always found it a bit strange that there were dozens of variants of the MIT and BSD license out there, but aside from the GPL and MPL no other popular license really took up the mantle of copyleft, aside from perhaps the old Sleepycat license. Fundamentally, copyleft can only be instantiated once. No two distinct copyleft licenses as we know them can be compatible with each other without jumping through carefully-placed hoops[1] because the combination necessarily imposes stricter distribution conditions (there would be no point otherwise), which is expressly what each copyleft license seeks to prohibit per se. I think it's only a slight exaggeration to say that the perceived problem of license proliferation, and the ecosystem of license gatekeeping that sprung up around it, owes itself wholly to the design of the GPL in this respect. It didn't last. The GPLv2/3 split haunts us to this day. 1: e.g. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/#mpl-and-lgpl https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/#mpl-and-lgpl
- kemitchell 7y ago
  > Fundamentally, copyleft can only be instantiated once. That's true of GPL-style copyleft, because it was designed quite intentionally to be a network-effect-leaden singleton. We say "GPL-compatible", but it's more accurate to say "GPL-submissive". The difference was felt very directly by the Eclipse folks in the run up to EPLv2. But there's nothing about share-alike terms that require that stricture. The Parity license that I mention in the blog post takes a different tack. Have a look at its rule about how to contribute back: https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0.html#contribute https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0.html#contribute A developer building on Parity code could choose to license their work on weaker copyleft terms.
  - naniwaduni 7y ago
    > But there's nothing about share-alike terms that require that stricture. The Parity license that I mention in the blog post takes a different tack. But they do. "or another license that allows everything this license does" sounds less restrictive at a glance, in that on the surface it permits additions to be separately licensed, but its effect is the same: no license with more stipulations is acceptable, and by symmetry any less restrictive share-alike license with similar wording cannot accept combination with this one. Additions to code under your license may be published under weaker terms. But they cannot be weaker copyleft terms. I can think of a few edge cases involving use of independent portions of the new work under only the weaker license, but it doesn't achieve a likely goal of someone choosing a copyleft license: to eliminate confusion about whether it's permissible to merge downstream improvements.
GoblinSlayer 7y ago
Isn't commercial license revokable?
rwmj 7y ago
> limits commercial use to a short trial period of 32 days. When a commercial user’s trial runs out, they need to buy a private license or stop using your software. So it's clearly not Free Software because it doesn't respect freedom 0. Hardly a surprise that Bradley Kuhn and the FSF object to it being classified as such. This is hardly a failure of "free software", just the author wants to try to subvert the definition which the FSF has long established. Maybe the author should try calling it something completely different (I suggest "trialware") and then the FSF wouldn't be bothered. (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)
- kemitchell 7y ago
  I’ve never presented Prosperity, the noncommercial form, as free or open source. The debate was about Parity, the strong copyleft form.
  - rwmj 7y ago
    Why not simply use the GPL?
    - kminehart 7y ago
      The GPL has always been criticized for its definition of distribution, which allows companies to host SaaS offerings of GPL software without having to make their modifications available. Hosting a GPL-licensed server and receiving network activity does not constitute distribution, which is why the AGPL exists.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

kemitchell 7y ago

I am in fact the prime mover behind License Zero (https://licensezero.com https://licensezero.com), but I am by no means alone in it. Parity and Prosperity would not be what they are without enormous amounts of feedback and suggestions from users and interested hackers. Some of those folks agreed to be listed here: https://licensezero.com/thanks https://licensezero.com/thanks There may be more copyleft licenses than you think. Blue Oak Council, in which I'm also involved, recently published this resource: https://blueoakcouncil.org/copyleft#copyleft-families https://blueoakcouncil.org/copyleft#copyleft-families That being said, you're absolutely right that we've seen more permissive licenses than copyleft license, by simple count. Compare: https://blueoakcouncil.org/list https://blueoakcouncil.org/list

naniwaduni 7y ago

> However, I always found it a bit strange that there were dozens of variants of the MIT and BSD license out there, but aside from the GPL and MPL no other popular license really took up the mantle of copyleft, aside from perhaps the old Sleepycat license. Fundamentally, copyleft can only be instantiated once. No two distinct copyleft licenses as we know them can be compatible with each other without jumping through carefully-placed hoops[1] because the combination necessarily imposes stricter distribution conditions (there would be no point otherwise), which is expressly what each copyleft license seeks to prohibit per se. I think it's only a slight exaggeration to say that the perceived problem of license proliferation, and the ecosystem of license gatekeeping that sprung up around it, owes itself wholly to the design of the GPL in this respect. It didn't last. The GPLv2/3 split haunts us to this day. 1: e.g. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/#mpl-and-lgpl https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/MPL/2.0/FAQ/#mpl-and-lgpl

kemitchell 7y ago
> Fundamentally, copyleft can only be instantiated once. That's true of GPL-style copyleft, because it was designed quite intentionally to be a network-effect-leaden singleton. We say "GPL-compatible", but it's more accurate to say "GPL-submissive". The difference was felt very directly by the Eclipse folks in the run up to EPLv2. But there's nothing about share-alike terms that require that stricture. The Parity license that I mention in the blog post takes a different tack. Have a look at its rule about how to contribute back: https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0.html#contribute https://paritylicense.com/versions/7.0.0.html#contribute A developer building on Parity code could choose to license their work on weaker copyleft terms.
- naniwaduni 7y ago
  > But there's nothing about share-alike terms that require that stricture. The Parity license that I mention in the blog post takes a different tack. But they do. "or another license that allows everything this license does" sounds less restrictive at a glance, in that on the surface it permits additions to be separately licensed, but its effect is the same: no license with more stipulations is acceptable, and by symmetry any less restrictive share-alike license with similar wording cannot accept combination with this one. Additions to code under your license may be published under weaker terms. But they cannot be weaker copyleft terms. I can think of a few edge cases involving use of independent portions of the new work under only the weaker license, but it doesn't achieve a likely goal of someone choosing a copyleft license: to eliminate confusion about whether it's permissible to merge downstream improvements.

GoblinSlayer 7y ago

Isn't commercial license revokable?

rwmj 7y ago

> limits commercial use to a short trial period of 32 days. When a commercial user’s trial runs out, they need to buy a private license or stop using your software. So it's clearly not Free Software because it doesn't respect freedom 0. Hardly a surprise that Bradley Kuhn and the FSF object to it being classified as such. This is hardly a failure of "free software", just the author wants to try to subvert the definition which the FSF has long established. Maybe the author should try calling it something completely different (I suggest "trialware") and then the FSF wouldn't be bothered. (https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html)

kemitchell 7y ago
I’ve never presented Prosperity, the noncommercial form, as free or open source. The debate was about Parity, the strong copyleft form.
- rwmj 7y ago
  Why not simply use the GPL?
  - kminehart 7y ago
    The GPL has always been criticized for its definition of distribution, which allows companies to host SaaS offerings of GPL software without having to make their modifications available. Hosting a GPL-licensed server and receiving network activity does not constitute distribution, which is why the AGPL exists.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]