4 ms·

No, you should ignore OSI crap. They interpret "open" as open to be closed and abused by corporations, not remaining open for end users.

zozbot234 7y ago
A requirement to "Contribute software you develop, operate, or analyze with this software" is incredibly extensive - imagine if, e.g. gcc or valgrind were licensed with this clause! You would be well advised not to ignore what OSI has to say; they're there to protect users and developers, not just corporate entities.
- _frkl 7y ago
  But it's good to have the option, no? Always depends what you try to license, and in some cases I think it's good to have a very strong copyleft license available. gcc might not be it, other software might. Also, I think saying 'protect' is quite one-sided, and signalling virtue while at the same time unfairly painting a copy left license like Parity as sorta predatory. Just my opinion, of course, but I wish every piece of software in the world was copy left licensed. I know that is unrealistic on millions of levels, but I still think it's a valid course of action to try to get us at least a tiny bit in that direction, and choosing a license that restricts a few small parts of select freedoms in exchange for that. Just because OSI has been seen as the champion of open source in the past doesn't mean we all agree that was justified, and a good thing. Most people think differently to me in this regard, or don't really care, but this is not and will never be a settled argument.
  - JoshTriplett 7y ago
    We don't need more non-FOSS licenses in the world. I'd like to see more use of copyleft as well, but the whole point of copyleft is to keep software FOSS. If the license isn't FOSS to begin with, that defeats the purpose.
    - _frkl 7y ago
      See, thats where we disagree. And thats perfectly fine, but i do honestly think we need at least one more copyleft license, one that actually works. FOSS ist just a bunch if words, which, apparently mean different things to you than they do to me. Maybe you are going to say that my interpretation is invalid, and i should be accepting the status quo. But well, that just doesn't make any sense to me... To me, it really boils down to this: I dont care that much about the freedom of people who dont care about their users freedom, i think restricting those peoples freedom is an acceptable tradeoff. With Parity, for example, as long as you open up your code you can use everything licensed with it. If you don't, or you use other non free software then parity licensed software doesn't really make anything worse to you as a user, since you already accept non open source code in your infrastructure/project. Parity might not be the best license ever, although i like it quite a bit, but i think it is at least a very valid attempt to fix a problem some people see as problem. You apparently dont think there is a problem, or its not that bad compared to such a solution, but that doesn't mean there's a guarantee you are right. Nor I.
      - JoshTriplett 7y ago
        There are two critical reasons I think it's important to stick to the letter of the OSD and DFSG: First, the OSD and DFSG are a line in the sand, a focal point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) . If we abandon that line, we lose much of the ability to push back on not-quite-open-source licenses. That's why not-quite-open-source licenses are in some ways a bigger problem than proprietary software, because they seem like such a small compromise, but they would move the Overton window. And second, in the specific case of Parity's non-FOSS license, there's a specific reason to reject it. It goes beyond the reach of copyright law into contract territory, and it would cause serious problems in toolchain software and developer software. (For the record, I acknowledge the problem you're referring to. I just consider the above problems much worse.)
        kemitchell 7y ago
        Defaults can be important, but the game to win isn't software licensing. That's just a play in bigger games like end-user rights and developer autonomy and dominating a market niche. Means, not the end. Unless it's really all about righteous cred strictly within the software industry itself, for self-edification or advancement. Meanwhile, nearsightedness on licensing politics allowed the frame to move out from under licensing long ago. SaaS. Data control. App Stores. Developer SDKs. As for Parity, GPLv3 has already been enforced under both contract and copyright, and already goes further than derivative works. But a license matters because of its rules, not how they work. Legal implementation details are just that. As for toolchain and developer software, Parity intentionally sets out to do for those what the GPLs tried to do for libraries, frameworks, and applications. If there's a good reason only some kinds of software---and some kinds of software developers---and only those get a gold star for their copyleft, I haven't read it yet. What I have read boils down to fear or deprecation of copyleft itself: keep it penned in where it is. We only needed it to get where we are now.
JoshTriplett 7y ago
> No, you should ignore OSI crap. They interpret "open" as open to be closed and abused by corporations, not remaining open for end users. This is incorrect. OSI's approved licenses include copyleft licenses, which do not permit releasing closed-source versions.

zozbot234 7y ago

A requirement to "Contribute software you develop, operate, or analyze with this software" is incredibly extensive - imagine if, e.g. gcc or valgrind were licensed with this clause! You would be well advised not to ignore what OSI has to say; they're there to protect users and developers, not just corporate entities.

_frkl 7y ago
But it's good to have the option, no? Always depends what you try to license, and in some cases I think it's good to have a very strong copyleft license available. gcc might not be it, other software might. Also, I think saying 'protect' is quite one-sided, and signalling virtue while at the same time unfairly painting a copy left license like Parity as sorta predatory. Just my opinion, of course, but I wish every piece of software in the world was copy left licensed. I know that is unrealistic on millions of levels, but I still think it's a valid course of action to try to get us at least a tiny bit in that direction, and choosing a license that restricts a few small parts of select freedoms in exchange for that. Just because OSI has been seen as the champion of open source in the past doesn't mean we all agree that was justified, and a good thing. Most people think differently to me in this regard, or don't really care, but this is not and will never be a settled argument.
- JoshTriplett 7y ago
  We don't need more non-FOSS licenses in the world. I'd like to see more use of copyleft as well, but the whole point of copyleft is to keep software FOSS. If the license isn't FOSS to begin with, that defeats the purpose.
  - _frkl 7y ago
    See, thats where we disagree. And thats perfectly fine, but i do honestly think we need at least one more copyleft license, one that actually works. FOSS ist just a bunch if words, which, apparently mean different things to you than they do to me. Maybe you are going to say that my interpretation is invalid, and i should be accepting the status quo. But well, that just doesn't make any sense to me... To me, it really boils down to this: I dont care that much about the freedom of people who dont care about their users freedom, i think restricting those peoples freedom is an acceptable tradeoff. With Parity, for example, as long as you open up your code you can use everything licensed with it. If you don't, or you use other non free software then parity licensed software doesn't really make anything worse to you as a user, since you already accept non open source code in your infrastructure/project. Parity might not be the best license ever, although i like it quite a bit, but i think it is at least a very valid attempt to fix a problem some people see as problem. You apparently dont think there is a problem, or its not that bad compared to such a solution, but that doesn't mean there's a guarantee you are right. Nor I.
    - JoshTriplett 7y ago
      There are two critical reasons I think it's important to stick to the letter of the OSD and DFSG: First, the OSD and DFSG are a line in the sand, a focal point: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) . If we abandon that line, we lose much of the ability to push back on not-quite-open-source licenses. That's why not-quite-open-source licenses are in some ways a bigger problem than proprietary software, because they seem like such a small compromise, but they would move the Overton window. And second, in the specific case of Parity's non-FOSS license, there's a specific reason to reject it. It goes beyond the reach of copyright law into contract territory, and it would cause serious problems in toolchain software and developer software. (For the record, I acknowledge the problem you're referring to. I just consider the above problems much worse.)
      - kemitchell 7y ago
        Defaults can be important, but the game to win isn't software licensing. That's just a play in bigger games like end-user rights and developer autonomy and dominating a market niche. Means, not the end. Unless it's really all about righteous cred strictly within the software industry itself, for self-edification or advancement. Meanwhile, nearsightedness on licensing politics allowed the frame to move out from under licensing long ago. SaaS. Data control. App Stores. Developer SDKs. As for Parity, GPLv3 has already been enforced under both contract and copyright, and already goes further than derivative works. But a license matters because of its rules, not how they work. Legal implementation details are just that. As for toolchain and developer software, Parity intentionally sets out to do for those what the GPLs tried to do for libraries, frameworks, and applications. If there's a good reason only some kinds of software---and some kinds of software developers---and only those get a gold star for their copyleft, I haven't read it yet. What I have read boils down to fear or deprecation of copyleft itself: keep it penned in where it is. We only needed it to get where we are now.

JoshTriplett 7y ago

> No, you should ignore OSI crap. They interpret "open" as open to be closed and abused by corporations, not remaining open for end users. This is incorrect. OSI's approved licenses include copyleft licenses, which do not permit releasing closed-source versions.