6 ms·

At JustDo we make our source code available for transparency and collaboration, we use a source-available license that ensures fair compensation for our work. T

by theosp 2y ago

At JustDo we make our source code available for transparency and collaboration, we use a source-available license that ensures fair compensation for our work. This model allows us to maintain the benefits of open development while avoiding the pitfalls of unrestricted open-source licensing, ensuring we can sustainably develop and support our software. I developed this license https://justdo.com/source-available-license https://justdo.com/source-available-license , if someone wants to adopt it for their project, I'd love to provide its Latex form, just DM me. (With enough demand, I might Open Source the Source available license ;) )."

llm_trw 2y ago
Yeah, source available is the way to go. I'm not here to make Bezos' yacht ten feet longer.
- mrob 2y ago
  What's wrong with AGPL?
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    monkey paw curls Your AGPL code now only runs on amazon lambda functions. Stallman et. al. have not worked in big corp since the 80s so they don't understand how misaligned incentives are now. The AGPL is a solution to the issues we were having in the 00s. The issues of the 20s are solved by source available licenses. Or my preferred solution, any open source license which can only be used by a natural person, corporations need not apply.
fsndz 2y ago
this is super good
jpt4 2y ago
Have violations of this license been successfully countered?
OutOfHere 2y ago
This is a disease. It is not open source. No one who values open source will use it. For any task, for software that would run on my system, I would rather use open source even if it's five times worse.
- llm_trw 2y ago
  No one is asking you to.
  - OutOfHere 2y ago
    Correct, but I am asking people to not use it because the whole software chain would erode and fall apart if too many people started using such non open-source licenses. Moreover, open source safeguards adoption of the software.
    - llm_trw 2y ago
      How does the MIT license do any of those things?
orlandohill 2y ago
Could you use a PolyForm license instead? They have a set of standardized, source-available licenses that are much shorter and easier to understand. "The PolyForm Project is a group of experienced licensing lawyers and technologists developing simple, standardized, plain-language software source code licenses. PolyForm aims to fill gaps in the menu of standardized software licenses, like non-commercial, trial, and small-business-only terms." https://polyformproject.org/ https://polyformproject.org/
- theosp 2y ago
  Interesting, I wasn't aware of this project.
ignoramous 2y ago
> allows us to maintain the benefits of open development while avoiding the pitfalls of unrestricted open-source licensing, ensuring we can sustainably develop and support "allow us", "ensuring we can" ... You misunderstand OSS, which is about "allow all", and "ensuring all of us can". Of course, the OSS model doesn't always work, nor do its proponents claim it is the one true way to run a project. Though, they do get irked when source-available licenses try to pass off as "almost OSS" but aren't quite.
- auggierose 2y ago
  I wouldn't care too much about what some dudes who don't pay for my software get irked by. The gp clearly distinguishes open-source and source-available, and I don't think he misunderstands OSS.
  - ignoramous 2y ago
    > I don't think he misunderstands OSS Perhaps misunderstands source-available: "At JustDo we make our source code available for transparency and collaboration"
    - auggierose 2y ago
      I don't see any misunderstanding there. Maybe you misunderstand the basic meaning of words? Transparency: If I can see the source code, that is certainly pretty much the definition of transparency. Collaboration: It is easier to collaborate if I can see the source, don't you think? That doesn't define the legal terms under which this collaboration happens, of course, and you should make sure they suit you before you collaborate.
      - ignoramous 2y ago
        Sure, collab with source-available licenses at your own peril.
        2y ago

by theosp 2y ago

llm_trw 2y ago

Yeah, source available is the way to go. I'm not here to make Bezos' yacht ten feet longer.

mrob 2y ago
What's wrong with AGPL?
- llm_trw 2y ago
  monkey paw curls Your AGPL code now only runs on amazon lambda functions. Stallman et. al. have not worked in big corp since the 80s so they don't understand how misaligned incentives are now. The AGPL is a solution to the issues we were having in the 00s. The issues of the 20s are solved by source available licenses. Or my preferred solution, any open source license which can only be used by a natural person, corporations need not apply.

fsndz 2y ago

this is super good

jpt4 2y ago

Have violations of this license been successfully countered?

OutOfHere 2y ago

This is a disease. It is not open source. No one who values open source will use it. For any task, for software that would run on my system, I would rather use open source even if it's five times worse.

llm_trw 2y ago
No one is asking you to.
- OutOfHere 2y ago
  Correct, but I am asking people to not use it because the whole software chain would erode and fall apart if too many people started using such non open-source licenses. Moreover, open source safeguards adoption of the software.
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    How does the MIT license do any of those things?

orlandohill 2y ago

Could you use a PolyForm license instead? They have a set of standardized, source-available licenses that are much shorter and easier to understand. "The PolyForm Project is a group of experienced licensing lawyers and technologists developing simple, standardized, plain-language software source code licenses. PolyForm aims to fill gaps in the menu of standardized software licenses, like non-commercial, trial, and small-business-only terms." https://polyformproject.org/ https://polyformproject.org/

theosp 2y ago
Interesting, I wasn't aware of this project.

ignoramous 2y ago

> allows us to maintain the benefits of open development while avoiding the pitfalls of unrestricted open-source licensing, ensuring we can sustainably develop and support "allow us", "ensuring we can" ... You misunderstand OSS, which is about "allow all", and "ensuring all of us can". Of course, the OSS model doesn't always work, nor do its proponents claim it is the one true way to run a project. Though, they do get irked when source-available licenses try to pass off as "almost OSS" but aren't quite.

auggierose 2y ago
I wouldn't care too much about what some dudes who don't pay for my software get irked by. The gp clearly distinguishes open-source and source-available, and I don't think he misunderstands OSS.
- ignoramous 2y ago
  > I don't think he misunderstands OSS Perhaps misunderstands source-available: "At JustDo we make our source code available for transparency and collaboration"
  - auggierose 2y ago
    I don't see any misunderstanding there. Maybe you misunderstand the basic meaning of words? Transparency: If I can see the source code, that is certainly pretty much the definition of transparency. Collaboration: It is easier to collaborate if I can see the source, don't you think? That doesn't define the legal terms under which this collaboration happens, of course, and you should make sure they suit you before you collaborate.
    - ignoramous 2y ago
      Sure, collab with source-available licenses at your own peril.
      - 2y ago