> Then don't choose a super permissive license like BSD/MIT. One big problem is that you cannot encode all possible wants and wishes into a legal document. La

> Then don't choose a super permissive license like BSD/MIT. One big problem is that you cannot encode all possible wants and wishes into a legal document. Laurence Lessig, founding member of Creative Commons, wrote in Code 2.0 (1999) about four elements that regulate behavior online: Laws, norms, markets, and technology - *Code/architecture* – the physical or technical constraints on activities (e.g. locks on doors or firewalls on the Internet) - *Market* – economic forces - *Law* – explicit mandates that can be enforced by the government - *Norms* – social conventions that one often feels compelled to follow It also doesn’t help that OSI and FSF operate as though they are each other’s biggest enemies instead of all the other threats out there. I feel like the definitions of “Free” and “Open” are too binary and lack nuance. I wish for something more, an open “score”, for example. Sure the Hipocratic license isn’t permissive but the only limitation it imposes is predicated on committing human atrocities as defined in legal code by the Geneva convention. So maybe it’s “closer” to MIT then say the “business source license” which is actively restricting commercialization. Or to put it another way: If we want software devs to choose licenses that are closer to their actual goals (like CC-BY-NC) then we need to find ways as a community to distinguish these projects as better than pure closed source, proprietary software. Because right now FSF and OSI classify both the same.