I reject that these licenses are specific to different communities at all. There are perfectly good strategic reasons why a free software person would use a BSD license, an Open Source person would use a GPL, and all of the licenses are acceptable to both camps . We are not doing restricted-availability licenses because I think they're boring and ultimately useless. We indirectly support dual-licensing if you want to do that, because it works with the GPL.
Gil, I have spent a lot of my time in bringing the free software and open source camps together, because they really are the same thing. I respectfully request that you stop attempting to divide the two communities, because it is harmful to both. Thanks Bruce On Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 07:24 Gil Yehuda <gyeh...@verizonmedia.com> wrote: > Bruce concludes with... > > that achieves *most purposes of Open Source/Free Software.* > > Reading this phrase a few times, something sticks out. We consistently > see three camps who leverage licenses for differing reasons. I present this > with no intent to judge, but only to describe as accurately as I can. > > - *Free*: an ethical movement that sees proprietary software as a > social wrong/evil. Licenses are designed to reduce this evil. > - *Open*: a crowdsourcing movement that enables networked value > production. Licenses allow participants to manage their intentional > involvement in unrestricted code sharing, yet not erode proprietary > software unintentionally. > - *Restricted **Availability* : a method to expose code but restrict > some usage. Licenses encourage some users to pay for usage (enabling a > business venture) or block usage in restricted domains. > > I think it's better to see the *differences* between the motivations for > Free Software, Open Source, and Source Available models, rather than > combine them and find something that fits most of the overlap. > > - Licenses that enable the ethical movement don't work for many > crowdsourcing participants. It forces them to share more than they want. By > design. > - Licenses that enable the crowdsource movement do not satisfy all the > goals of the ethical movement, nor do they satisfy the goals of the > restricted availability movement. By design. > - Licenses that enable restrictions do not satisfy the goals of either > of the other two movements. Again by design. > > So if you are going to propose a reduction exercise (and if it actually > takes off this time), let me suggest altering the goal from "achieves *most > purposes of Open Source/Free Software*" to "clarify when a license meets > the intent of the Free Software movement, the Open Source movement, or the > Restricted Availability movement." Then include the representatives of each > movement so they can help clarify where there is overlap and where not. I > think this will help each movement to sit comfortably on its turf and know > that others are not over-claiming. > > tl;dr: People who say "one size fits most" mean "one size fits me." > > Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement > > From the Open Source Program Office > <https://developer.yahoo.com/opensource/docs/> at Yahoo / Verizon Media > > On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 9:29 AM VanL <van.lindb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> [Responding on license-discuss] >> >> I look forward to you endorsing the CAL, the ISC license, and MPL2 as the >> only licenses necessary for anyone to use. >> >> More seriously, is this the "only three licenses are necessary" argument, >> or is there a different set? If so, why? >> >> Thanks, >> Van >> >> On Wed, Sep 11, 2019 at 8:29 PM Bruce Perens via License-review < >> license-rev...@lists.opensource.org> wrote: >> >>> Friday next week at Open Core Summit, I will announce COHERENT OPEN >>> SOURCE. Let's scrap the Tower of Babel of 100+ Open Source licenses, for a >>> minimal set, FSF/OSI approved, cross-compatible, that achieves most >>> purposes of Open Source/Free Software. >>> -- >>> Bruce Perens - Partner, OSS.Capital. >>> _______________________________________________ >>> License-review mailing list >>> license-rev...@lists.opensource.org >>> >>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> License-discuss mailing list >> License-discuss@lists.opensource.org >> >> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >> > _______________________________________________ > License-discuss mailing list > License-discuss@lists.opensource.org > > http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org >
_______________________________________________ License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
