3 ms·

It has already been tried - see e.g. the duo of https://paritylicense.com/ https://paritylicense.com/ + https://prosperitylicense.com/ https://prosperitylicense

It has already been tried - see e.g. the duo of https://paritylicense.com/ https://paritylicense.com/ + https://prosperitylicense.com/ https://prosperitylicense.com/ Just don't call it open source or free software. It's source-available at this point.

swilliamsio 5y ago
Prosperity license seems to be exactly what OP is looking for. Looks like it's had a few big projects use it too, which is promising. I wish someone would write a software compatible equivalent of Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA however: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
freeloaderz 5y ago
Thanks for sharing, I haven't seen these before. I'm curious what the viewpoint is from other devs are on sw with a license like this? Would you use sw under either of those licenses? (They seem reasonable to me).
- seba_dos1 5y ago
  No, I wouldn't. Most of what I do requires Free Software licenses or sometimes even GPL compatibility, and such licenses are neither free, open nor GPL compatible. For me, such software wouldn't be much different from proprietary freeware.
  - freeloaderz 5y ago
    So you wouldn't add a test case, new example, or fix a typo in the docs to gain access to an MIT equivalent license?
    - seba_dos1 5y ago
      It's not MIT equivalent. It it was, it could be relicensed. In many cases it's not even relevant what I would do or not, because such licenses make it not possible to integrate such code in a project under GPL, or to include it in a free distribution. Looking at these licenses closer, I wonder if Parity could actually be considered free. Seems to my eye like it could be, but IANAL. For practical purposes, I'd probably consider it same as non-free until it's said to be DFSG-compliant. Prosperity sure isn't free though.
- coldpie 5y ago
  I don't really understand what goal you're trying to achieve that the GPL or LGPL couldn't. As a dev, if I see a project using a license I'm unfamiliar with, I'll probably first look elsewhere as I already understand the ins & outs of GPL- and MIT-style licenses, but not whatever this new thing is. These two licenses in particular are pretty crummy. Define "commercial." When does the 30-day period start? How would my usage be proven one way or the other in court?
matt_heimer 5y ago
That was an interesting rabbit hole, their github owner is https://github.com/licensezero/ https://github.com/licensezero/. I don't think I've seen licensing as a service before (https://fastpathlicense.com/ https://fastpathlicense.com/) or connecting a license to a Patron reward tier.

swilliamsio 5y ago

Prosperity license seems to be exactly what OP is looking for. Looks like it's had a few big projects use it too, which is promising. I wish someone would write a software compatible equivalent of Creative Commons CC BY-NC-SA however: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

freeloaderz 5y ago

Thanks for sharing, I haven't seen these before. I'm curious what the viewpoint is from other devs are on sw with a license like this? Would you use sw under either of those licenses? (They seem reasonable to me).

seba_dos1 5y ago
No, I wouldn't. Most of what I do requires Free Software licenses or sometimes even GPL compatibility, and such licenses are neither free, open nor GPL compatible. For me, such software wouldn't be much different from proprietary freeware.
- freeloaderz 5y ago
  So you wouldn't add a test case, new example, or fix a typo in the docs to gain access to an MIT equivalent license?
  - seba_dos1 5y ago
    It's not MIT equivalent. It it was, it could be relicensed. In many cases it's not even relevant what I would do or not, because such licenses make it not possible to integrate such code in a project under GPL, or to include it in a free distribution. Looking at these licenses closer, I wonder if Parity could actually be considered free. Seems to my eye like it could be, but IANAL. For practical purposes, I'd probably consider it same as non-free until it's said to be DFSG-compliant. Prosperity sure isn't free though.
coldpie 5y ago
I don't really understand what goal you're trying to achieve that the GPL or LGPL couldn't. As a dev, if I see a project using a license I'm unfamiliar with, I'll probably first look elsewhere as I already understand the ins & outs of GPL- and MIT-style licenses, but not whatever this new thing is. These two licenses in particular are pretty crummy. Define "commercial." When does the 30-day period start? How would my usage be proven one way or the other in court?

matt_heimer 5y ago

That was an interesting rabbit hole, their github owner is https://github.com/licensezero/ https://github.com/licensezero/. I don't think I've seen licensing as a service before (https://fastpathlicense.com/ https://fastpathlicense.com/) or connecting a license to a Patron reward tier.