4 ms·

Why don't we have a permanent OSS license?

• mathewpregasen 1y ago
  A little piece I wrote. I might add more to it later, but I'd love any feedback. I feel like I might be missing something.
  • layer8 1y ago
    1. This effectively already exists in the form of organizations like the Apache Software Foundation. 2. Companies publishing OSS don’t usually suffer enough skepticism for them to be willing to give up control over their trademark. 3. In some jurisdictions, copyright isn’t transferrable, and only licensing is allowed [0]. The original creator always retains the copyright. You seem to be talking more about the branding/trademark, however, which is a different thing. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_transfer_agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_transfer_agreement
    • mathewpregasen 1y ago
      this is helpful feedback, thank you. Could you elaborate on 1 though?
      • layer8 1y ago
        Many Apache projects are predominantly developed and maintained by companies who use them to implement and/or sell services and integrations for them. The Apache branding ensures that if a company decides to monetize a proprietary fork, they’ll have to market it under a different name: https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/ https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/
• wmf 1y ago
  "designed to service commercial OSS projects that are making a strong commitment to OSS, but retaining the otherwise commercial aspects of their business" == Linux Foundation I'm not sure why the post dismisses this.