3 ms·
Yes, so the first step is to stop demonizing projects that opt for alternative "source available" licenses, and stop idolizing one canonical definition of capit
by leppr 6y ago
Yes, so the first step is to stop demonizing projects that opt for alternative "source available" licenses, and stop idolizing one canonical definition of capital O "Open-Source" licenses.
Despite most everyone implicitly associating open source with gratis, it's not a requirement or even preferable in my opinion. The benefits of OSS to users are all still there with paid software.
Tangentially this makes me think of a recent phenomenon I'm sure many OSS advocates love to ridicule or trivialize, but which shows at least an attempt to solve the problem of compensation for freely replicable work: NFTs. If you manage to see past the mainstream view that people are "buying links to jpeg files", and rather understand that people are paying for public recognition of patronage, there's something to be said about their ability to get people to pay for "open source" work.
- karussell 6y agoCan you list a project with a big community that has a "source available" license right from the start? I won't demonize these projects but people prefer "open source" over "source available" for a reason.
- kfarr 6y agoJWPlayer
- leppr 6y agoUnreal Engine is a pretty big and successful one. In the cryptocurrency space: Metamask[1], and the upcoming Uniswap V3[2]. Of course, given the choice, myself included, users prefer the more permissive license. The question is what strikes the right balance of incentives for developers and respect of users. [1]: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/ https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/ [2]: https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/ https://uniswap.org/blog/uniswap-v3/
- Qwertious 6y agoThe problem is that sources available destroys the antitrust forking feature that's core to open source. MySQL/MariaDB, OpenOffice/LibreOffice, Cyanogenmod/LineageOS, a couple others had the IP go to someone who didn't have an incentive to develop it properly, so didn't. Source Available permits this with no real recourse. Agreed on the NFT comment, BTW.
- thesource 6y agoyou are on to something. It is really interesting how much double standard I see on developers forums: "oh it is not open source, why?" "oh it is open source or free, and you raising vc funding...probably gonna end up acquired" It is sad.
- fsflover 6y agoThis is not a double standard. If it's not FLOSS, then users have no essential rights: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor...