3 ms·

> There is a long queue of people lining up to criticise him, but nobody has successfully cobbled together an alternative to the FSF. This isn't true. I have

> There is a long queue of people lining up to criticise him, but nobody has successfully cobbled together an alternative to the FSF. This isn't true. I have actually seen several non-FSF/OSI attempts at licenses in the recent past, most notably License Zero with its Prosperity and Parity licenses, as well as alternative licenses like the Server Side Public License and Business Source License. The trouble is that attempting to learn from the lessons of past licenses tends to draw a lot of dogmatic outrage because said licenses either don't conform to the open source definition or four freedoms - or at least, not in the opinion of the OSI or FSF. If developers are unwilling to think outside those boxes en masse, then we are in effect "stuck" with the existing power structures. And that power structure is what led to things like the wide preference of permissive licenses and promoting and prioritizing the GPLv3 over the AGPLv3.

dmm 3y ago
> The trouble is that attempting to learn from the lessons of past licenses tends to draw a lot of dogmatic outrage because said licenses either don't conform to the open source definition or four freedoms - or at least, not in the opinion of the OSI or FSF. They generate outrage because they are accompanied by people trying to change the definition of open-source, not with the idea of alternative licenses.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  > They generate outrage because they are accompanied by people trying to change the definition of open-source If the precondition of learning lessons from past licenses is that they must follow the rules set by those past licenses as holy writ, then it follows that organizations like the FSF with leaders like RMS are the best you can hope for. Personally, I think we as a community of developers are capable of better.
  - dmm 3y ago
    Open Source is a term invented in 1998 a direct alternative to Free Software which is the term used by RMS/FSF. Bringing up RMS is irrelevant. If you want to promote licenses which don't meet the definition of FOSS, that's fine! Just call it something else. Here are some ideas: - Shared Source - Clear Source - Awesome Source - Friendly Source - Just Source
    - LexiMax 3y ago
      These conversations invariably get hijacked by OS/FS advocates who intentionally pick language designed to put any license that doesn't follow its dogma into one big bucket, despite the sometimes significant material differences between them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
LtWorf 3y ago
Ah so it's everyone's fault if they didn't rush to adopt some nonsensical license?
Plasmoid 3y ago
The problem is that Open Source / Free Software is a Brand. I don't mean registered trademark, I mean a term that denotes specific things to people. CGP Grey's Pirate [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YFeE1eDlD0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YFeE1eDlD0] video actually does a really good job explaining what a brand is the core sense. Open source means things and people are right to complain when your license doesn't mean that. So you can have your Source-available licenses, use them if it's right for your project, but stop trying to freeboot off the OS/FS brand.

dmm 3y ago

> The trouble is that attempting to learn from the lessons of past licenses tends to draw a lot of dogmatic outrage because said licenses either don't conform to the open source definition or four freedoms - or at least, not in the opinion of the OSI or FSF. They generate outrage because they are accompanied by people trying to change the definition of open-source, not with the idea of alternative licenses.

LexiMax 3y ago
> They generate outrage because they are accompanied by people trying to change the definition of open-source If the precondition of learning lessons from past licenses is that they must follow the rules set by those past licenses as holy writ, then it follows that organizations like the FSF with leaders like RMS are the best you can hope for. Personally, I think we as a community of developers are capable of better.
- dmm 3y ago
  Open Source is a term invented in 1998 a direct alternative to Free Software which is the term used by RMS/FSF. Bringing up RMS is irrelevant. If you want to promote licenses which don't meet the definition of FOSS, that's fine! Just call it something else. Here are some ideas: - Shared Source - Clear Source - Awesome Source - Friendly Source - Just Source
  - LexiMax 3y ago
    These conversations invariably get hijacked by OS/FS advocates who intentionally pick language designed to put any license that doesn't follow its dogma into one big bucket, despite the sometimes significant material differences between them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

LtWorf 3y ago

Ah so it's everyone's fault if they didn't rush to adopt some nonsensical license?

Plasmoid 3y ago

The problem is that Open Source / Free Software is a Brand. I don't mean registered trademark, I mean a term that denotes specific things to people. CGP Grey's Pirate [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YFeE1eDlD0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3YFeE1eDlD0] video actually does a really good job explaining what a brand is the core sense. Open source means things and people are right to complain when your license doesn't mean that. So you can have your Source-available licenses, use them if it's right for your project, but stop trying to freeboot off the OS/FS brand.