3 ms·

The polyform project – creative commons for software

26 points by fallat 6y ago

ignoramous 6y ago
Whilst Polyform is a great alternative to simply slapping Creative Commons by Non-Commercial licenses (which aren't really meant for code), I wonder if Creative Commons should in fact develop next version of licenses (OSI approved or not) with source-code in mind (or adopt licenses from the Polyform Project). This might prevent the ecosystem from coming up with all sorts of source-available licenses and instead rally behind a common standard. After all, even if these source-available licenses do not capture the spirit of "open source", they do bring benefits in the sense that the builds can be reproducibility verified, other upstarts and folks can learn from these open code-bases, non-profits can use it for non-commercial purposes, etc. I am not a big believer in source-available licenses but its benefits should not be overlooked by adhering to some narrow definition of "open source" [0]. I imagine source-available licenses might make more firms comfortable sharing their code on github / gitlab; which in turn can feed into code-crawlers like srclib.org or kythe.io, making them better. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25795896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25795896
- mondoshawan 6y ago
  Isn't the common standard licenses the OSI lists? Things like GPL, BSD, MIT, and Apache are well known, well documented, and very specific to software copyright and its use. I've read through PolyForm's stuff, and it heavily bases itself on generalized language nonspecific to software, with language like "you can do anything that would normally violate the licensor's copyright", and only later after countering clauses does it go into specifics. I'm not sure I could trust myself or my company to use or evaluate these licenses, especially when it comes to things like "does this license affect the output of this piece of software?" in part because of how weirdly these licenses are broken up and also in part because of how convoluted and generalized they are (general language like this breeds loopholes).
  - ignoramous 6y ago
    > Isn't the common standard licenses the OSI lists? I meant a Creative Commons-esque body for source-available licenses. OSI strictly recognizes F/OSS-only licenses.
cies 6y ago
Great initiative. Though big corps have shown their tastes when it comes to free software: BSD (and the likes) or not something we touch (as in distribute/contribute to). Still good to have some more options.

26 points by fallat 6y ago

Whilst Polyform is a great alternative to simply slapping Creative Commons by Non-Commercial licenses (which aren't really meant for code), I wonder if Creative Commons should in fact develop next version of licenses (OSI approved or not) with source-code in mind (or adopt licenses from the Polyform Project). This might prevent the ecosystem from coming up with all sorts of source-available licenses and instead rally behind a common standard. After all, even if these source-available licenses do not capture the spirit of "open source", they do bring benefits in the sense that the builds can be reproducibility verified, other upstarts and folks can learn from these open code-bases, non-profits can use it for non-commercial purposes, etc. I am not a big believer in source-available licenses but its benefits should not be overlooked by adhering to some narrow definition of "open source" [0]. I imagine source-available licenses might make more firms comfortable sharing their code on github / gitlab; which in turn can feed into code-crawlers like srclib.org or kythe.io, making them better. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25795896 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25795896

mondoshawan 6y ago
Isn't the common standard licenses the OSI lists? Things like GPL, BSD, MIT, and Apache are well known, well documented, and very specific to software copyright and its use. I've read through PolyForm's stuff, and it heavily bases itself on generalized language nonspecific to software, with language like "you can do anything that would normally violate the licensor's copyright", and only later after countering clauses does it go into specifics. I'm not sure I could trust myself or my company to use or evaluate these licenses, especially when it comes to things like "does this license affect the output of this piece of software?" in part because of how weirdly these licenses are broken up and also in part because of how convoluted and generalized they are (general language like this breeds loopholes).
- ignoramous 6y ago
  > Isn't the common standard licenses the OSI lists? I meant a Creative Commons-esque body for source-available licenses. OSI strictly recognizes F/OSS-only licenses.

cies 6y ago

Great initiative. Though big corps have shown their tastes when it comes to free software: BSD (and the likes) or not something we touch (as in distribute/contribute to). Still good to have some more options.