5 ms·

The MIT license is so simple, just add/delete to make your own. My bespoke license is free and open source for the user, but restricts them using it for or on

The MIT license is so simple, just add/delete to make your own. My bespoke license is free and open source for the user, but restricts them using it for or on behalf of another person.

josephcsible 6y ago
That sounds like it's not open source. Also, license proliferation is a bad thing and you really shouldn't encourage it.
- angel_j 6y ago
  Open source means you can read the source. The idea that all my work must be FOSS is somebody else's ideal, and one that has kept a lot of people I know from getting paid. Meanwhile, plenty of code, probably most running your world, is purely in the dark and definitely not open source. Whatever you think about "license proliferation", that's like, your opinion. What world are you from that I can't have my own license for my own work? What kind of lemmings notion is it that I should only use a well known, open source license, especially a license that explicitly gives my work away uncompensated to random people on the internet? You are so brainwashed with slogan terminology that you think Open Source has exactly one meaning, and that meaning is not even that the source code is open? Jesus, this forum is retarding sometimes. FOH with yr downvotes. Edit, furthermore, I have dozens of totally FOSS code projects out there, downloaded millions of time per month. Is your business 100% open source, down to how to track your users? Stop telling people what they should do out here.
  - angel_j 6y ago
    This needs more downvotes.
  - josephcsible 6y ago
    > Open source means you can read the source. No, that's "visible source" or "source available". Read the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd It even addresses your misconception right up front: "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." > The idea that all my work must be FOSS is somebody else's ideal, and one that has kept a lot of people I know from getting paid. You can get paid even if everything you build is FOSS. Look at Red Hat. > Whatever you think about "license proliferation", that's like, your opinion. What world are you from that I can't have my own license for my own work? What kind of lemmings notion is it that I should only use a well known, open source license, especially a license that explicitly gives my work away uncompensated to random people on the internet? Even if your bespoke license were open source, there's a very good chance that it would be incompatible with other licenses like the GPL, thus creating more ZFS-on-Linux sort of problems.
- throwaway936482 6y ago
  Can I ask why it is that the "foss community" is so hell bent on restricting the freedom of creators to call their software open source if the source is open, or choose licenses that might help them actually support themselves financially? As far as I can tell the "freedom" pushed by Foss evangelists only goes one way - to benefit often corporate consumers. I genuinely don't think I've ever seen a "community" that is so intent on policing language and action than that which exists around Foss.
  - pseudalopex 6y ago
    Open source has a specific common meaning. Other ideas have other common names like source available.
    - angel_j 6y ago
      It means you can read the source. It doesn't mean it has to be free. That would be FOSS. And nothing has more convoluted multi-meanings than FREE, so your argument about "common meaning" is dead wrong. Also, trying to enforce universal meaning, like enforcing universal ideals, is patently retarding. FOH!
      - pseudalopex 6y ago
        Free software has 2 common meanings. That says nothing about open source. FOSS is also written F/OSS. It reflects that the common meaning of open source and the less common meaning of free software are almost identical. GNU says "...we know of only a few cases of source code that is open source but not free. In principle it could happen that some free programs are rejected as open source, but we don't know if that has ever happened."[1] Source available is an unambiguous and more descriptive name for the kind of software that matters to you. Nobody can force you to call it that. But don't expect other people to change their definition of open source. That says nothing about their ideals. Microsoft coined shared source the same year Steve Ballmer called Linux a cancer.[2][3] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html.en [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20011108013601/http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html https://web.archive.org/web/20011108013601/http://www.suntim...
- angel_j 6y ago
  Please, do tell, how long have you been writing "open source" and how much of your source is really open, and how much of that open source has anybody read? You know what replaces open source? Trusted source. Not the source code, but the source of the code. I will gladly use code by somebody I trust, without looking, because ultimately I can't read every line, and nobody who preaches open source actually does read every line. If you preach open source, or FOSS, but don't read and understand every line of code you use, you are a hypocrite.
angel_j 6y ago
You know why this is better than your name brand Open Source license? Because this forces people to be closer to their software, to share in the learning of using Open Source software. What good is MIT to give somebody the right to MISUSE my software on somebody? Because they can make a buck? My license prevents abuse directly, and automatically. You can't use this spell on somebody else.

The MIT license is so simple, just add/delete to make your own. My bespoke license is free and open source for the user, but restricts them using it for or on behalf of another person.

josephcsible 6y ago

That sounds like it's not open source. Also, license proliferation is a bad thing and you really shouldn't encourage it.

angel_j 6y ago
Open source means you can read the source. The idea that all my work must be FOSS is somebody else's ideal, and one that has kept a lot of people I know from getting paid. Meanwhile, plenty of code, probably most running your world, is purely in the dark and definitely not open source. Whatever you think about "license proliferation", that's like, your opinion. What world are you from that I can't have my own license for my own work? What kind of lemmings notion is it that I should only use a well known, open source license, especially a license that explicitly gives my work away uncompensated to random people on the internet? You are so brainwashed with slogan terminology that you think Open Source has exactly one meaning, and that meaning is not even that the source code is open? Jesus, this forum is retarding sometimes. FOH with yr downvotes. Edit, furthermore, I have dozens of totally FOSS code projects out there, downloaded millions of time per month. Is your business 100% open source, down to how to track your users? Stop telling people what they should do out here.
- angel_j 6y ago
  This needs more downvotes.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  > Open source means you can read the source. No, that's "visible source" or "source available". Read the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd It even addresses your misconception right up front: "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." > The idea that all my work must be FOSS is somebody else's ideal, and one that has kept a lot of people I know from getting paid. You can get paid even if everything you build is FOSS. Look at Red Hat. > Whatever you think about "license proliferation", that's like, your opinion. What world are you from that I can't have my own license for my own work? What kind of lemmings notion is it that I should only use a well known, open source license, especially a license that explicitly gives my work away uncompensated to random people on the internet? Even if your bespoke license were open source, there's a very good chance that it would be incompatible with other licenses like the GPL, thus creating more ZFS-on-Linux sort of problems.
throwaway936482 6y ago
Can I ask why it is that the "foss community" is so hell bent on restricting the freedom of creators to call their software open source if the source is open, or choose licenses that might help them actually support themselves financially? As far as I can tell the "freedom" pushed by Foss evangelists only goes one way - to benefit often corporate consumers. I genuinely don't think I've ever seen a "community" that is so intent on policing language and action than that which exists around Foss.
- pseudalopex 6y ago
  Open source has a specific common meaning. Other ideas have other common names like source available.
  - angel_j 6y ago
    It means you can read the source. It doesn't mean it has to be free. That would be FOSS. And nothing has more convoluted multi-meanings than FREE, so your argument about "common meaning" is dead wrong. Also, trying to enforce universal meaning, like enforcing universal ideals, is patently retarding. FOH!
    - pseudalopex 6y ago
      Free software has 2 common meanings. That says nothing about open source. FOSS is also written F/OSS. It reflects that the common meaning of open source and the less common meaning of free software are almost identical. GNU says "...we know of only a few cases of source code that is open source but not free. In principle it could happen that some free programs are rejected as open source, but we don't know if that has ever happened."[1] Source available is an unambiguous and more descriptive name for the kind of software that matters to you. Nobody can force you to call it that. But don't expect other people to change their definition of open source. That says nothing about their ideals. Microsoft coined shared source the same year Steve Ballmer called Linux a cancer.[2][3] [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html.en [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20011108013601/http://www.suntimes.com/output/tech/cst-fin-micro01.html https://web.archive.org/web/20011108013601/http://www.suntim...
angel_j 6y ago
Please, do tell, how long have you been writing "open source" and how much of your source is really open, and how much of that open source has anybody read? You know what replaces open source? Trusted source. Not the source code, but the source of the code. I will gladly use code by somebody I trust, without looking, because ultimately I can't read every line, and nobody who preaches open source actually does read every line. If you preach open source, or FOSS, but don't read and understand every line of code you use, you are a hypocrite.

angel_j 6y ago

You know why this is better than your name brand Open Source license? Because this forces people to be closer to their software, to share in the learning of using Open Source software. What good is MIT to give somebody the right to MISUSE my software on somebody? Because they can make a buck? My license prevents abuse directly, and automatically. You can't use this spell on somebody else.