4 ms·

> It just won't be a FOSS license by the traditionally understood definition of FOSS. For better or worse, the Free Software definition guarantees more freedom

> It just won't be a FOSS license by the traditionally understood definition of FOSS. For better or worse, the Free Software definition guarantees more freedom around end-user usage than it does around how you distribute software. I appreciate your frank admission of the distinction, but I have yet to hear a good defense of it that both rests on something other than "that's the way we said it is" and doesn't trap GPL or AGPL. The understanding you describe exists, but I can't agree that it's broadly shared or accepted. If there's a tradition, it belongs to a very narrow tribe. That tribe isn't growing particularly fast precisely because its tenets are so esoteric and don't stand up to typical hacker interrogation by those not thoroughly marinated in the political history. That's the "byzantine, insular ideology of copyleft" I mentioned in the blog post. > The only thing you can't do is purposefully confuse people by calling your licenses something that they're not. I can call it open, and I do. Folks may hear both your view and mine, but the result isn't confusion. It's a choice. There is no proprietary right in the terms "free software" or "open source". And there is no good reason for those presently ill served to pretend those ill serving them enjoy such a right. When a better mousetrap comes along, the designer of the last model doesn't get to pull the words "mouse trap" out of the newcomer's mouth. As in software, so in licenses: lead, follow, get out of the way, or get run over. When I follow my people to a license problem, I try my best to lead with solutions. > Nobody is upset that SSPL, API Copyleft, Parity, CAL, and Icepick exist. I'm glad to hear you say so, but I've received lots of feedback from people who are upset. And not just because "license proliferation". Have a look at the OSI license-review archives ... though I don't generally recommend that. > The licenses you mention are not Free Software licenses because restricting what people do with their software, and not just how they share it, violates rule 0. Making changes and building applications are things that people do with software, ways that people use software, in common parlance. The only folks I know who want to split that hair aim to defend FSF's free software definition. That definition was largely a post hoc rationalization designed to alleviate the cognitive dissonance between the increasingly libertarian, permissive bent taking over open source ideology via OSI/ESR and the overt prescriptivism of GPL. OSI revels in permissionlessness and an idealized, rules-free environment. GPL is full of rules. It was politically expedient to draw a line around GPL and say "no rules, except these rules, because we need these people as allies". Not rigorous. Not otherwise coherent. > Just stop trying to co-opt a movement and blur lines that have been clearly understood for years. That movement hasn't moved in some time. The initiative is out of initiative. There is no widespread understanding of the details we're discussing. We are both rarefied wonks. The movement you seem to think I'm coopting was itself coopted. Open source "won" by giving software freedom to developers who don't pass along to end-users in turn. I don't apologize for writing copyleft licenses that eschew the compromises of the earlier forms. Especially in light of their performance to date.

danShumway 7y ago
> That definition was largely a post hoc rationalization designed to alleviate the cognitive dissonance between the increasingly libertarian, permissive bent taking over open source ideology via OSI/ESR and the overt prescriptivism of GPL. This is... a view of that debate, and to be fair it's not necessarily unfounded. But let's assume it's 100% accurate. Would you say that debate was a good thing for the FOSS movement as a whole, or was it a painful years-long argument that fractured the community and forced otherwise productive developers to waste hundreds of hours arguing with each other? I don't understand the point-of-view of someone who looks at the GPL, says, "that exception was an arbitrary compromise" and then concludes, "let's add more arbitrary compromises." > I don't apologize for writing copyleft licenses that eschew the compromises of the earlier forms. I'm not asking you to. I just don't see why that has to involve attacking a tribe that is resistant to fundamental changes of this sort, and that is perfectly happy with its current growth and direction. I don't see what any of that has to do with your ability to build or promote new licenses, and I don't see why the narrow nature of the FOSS tribe means that suddenly we shouldn't be free to create our own terms that accurately and narrowly describe what we stand for. Say what you want, brand dilution is a real thing, and you are causing it. And what possible benefit could there be to having this argument? Call your licenses Copyleft++, or Shared Source, or Liberty Licenses, or Social Good Licenses, or Share Alike. You say that you're not trying to co-opt a movement, but I don't understand what benefit you could ever gain from going to war with the existing FOSS community other than to seize on the existing expectations of users who feel like they already understand and can trust what FOSS software is and how it acts in the real world. > When a better mousetrap comes along, the designer of the last model doesn't get to pull the words "mouse trap" out of the newcomer's mouth. No, of course not. But if you build a bear trap and start advertising it as a mouse trap, I'm going to call you out on that. You can say the distinctions that we have are arbitrary, you can say that the community is small, you can say that we're dumb for holding on to them, you can say that most people want a new movement that's more receptive to their specific goals, you can say we're ineffective. Fine. But the distinctions still exist, and they allow us as a community to precisely describe ourselves, and we have used them for years, and you don't have the right to arbitrarily take them away. If you think you can build a better movement, and you obviously think you can, then go build a better movement. I have no objection at all to different communities approaching user freedom from different angles and philosophies. I welcome that, the more the merrier. I would genuinely, sincerely love to see more alternatives to the FOSS movement spring up, because I admit that the FOSS movement can't address everyone's needs on its own. It's especially fantastic to see lawyers getting involved, because there's a huge, real need for more variety of pre-built licenses that devs can safely adopt, and there are a very small number of people who are both advocating for user freedom and equipped to build those licenses. It's really, really good. Just stop saying that it's FOSS.

danShumway 7y ago

> That definition was largely a post hoc rationalization designed to alleviate the cognitive dissonance between the increasingly libertarian, permissive bent taking over open source ideology via OSI/ESR and the overt prescriptivism of GPL. This is... a view of that debate, and to be fair it's not necessarily unfounded. But let's assume it's 100% accurate. Would you say that debate was a good thing for the FOSS movement as a whole, or was it a painful years-long argument that fractured the community and forced otherwise productive developers to waste hundreds of hours arguing with each other? I don't understand the point-of-view of someone who looks at the GPL, says, "that exception was an arbitrary compromise" and then concludes, "let's add more arbitrary compromises." > I don't apologize for writing copyleft licenses that eschew the compromises of the earlier forms. I'm not asking you to. I just don't see why that has to involve attacking a tribe that is resistant to fundamental changes of this sort, and that is perfectly happy with its current growth and direction. I don't see what any of that has to do with your ability to build or promote new licenses, and I don't see why the narrow nature of the FOSS tribe means that suddenly we shouldn't be free to create our own terms that accurately and narrowly describe what we stand for. Say what you want, brand dilution is a real thing, and you are causing it. And what possible benefit could there be to having this argument? Call your licenses Copyleft++, or Shared Source, or Liberty Licenses, or Social Good Licenses, or Share Alike. You say that you're not trying to co-opt a movement, but I don't understand what benefit you could ever gain from going to war with the existing FOSS community other than to seize on the existing expectations of users who feel like they already understand and can trust what FOSS software is and how it acts in the real world. > When a better mousetrap comes along, the designer of the last model doesn't get to pull the words "mouse trap" out of the newcomer's mouth. No, of course not. But if you build a bear trap and start advertising it as a mouse trap, I'm going to call you out on that. You can say the distinctions that we have are arbitrary, you can say that the community is small, you can say that we're dumb for holding on to them, you can say that most people want a new movement that's more receptive to their specific goals, you can say we're ineffective. Fine. But the distinctions still exist, and they allow us as a community to precisely describe ourselves, and we have used them for years, and you don't have the right to arbitrarily take them away. If you think you can build a better movement, and you obviously think you can, then go build a better movement. I have no objection at all to different communities approaching user freedom from different angles and philosophies. I welcome that, the more the merrier. I would genuinely, sincerely love to see more alternatives to the FOSS movement spring up, because I admit that the FOSS movement can't address everyone's needs on its own. It's especially fantastic to see lawyers getting involved, because there's a huge, real need for more variety of pre-built licenses that devs can safely adopt, and there are a very small number of people who are both advocating for user freedom and equipped to build those licenses. It's really, really good. Just stop saying that it's FOSS.