I'd like to learn if either is in play as a motivation, or if it is something else. Perhaps someone with insight into and speaks on behalf of the Ethical Source Movement can help clarify. It makes a difference.
Gil Yehuda: I help with external technology engagement On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:52 AM Kevin P. Fleming <kevin+...@km6g.us> wrote: > On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:44 AM Gil Yehuda via License-discuss > <license-discuss@lists.opensource.org> wrote: > > > tl;dr: What about the classification "Source-available" is insufficient > for the Ethical Source movement such that changing the OSD is seen as a > benefit? Why not proceed developing and enhancing the Ethical Source > movement materials and work with the Source-available movement to refine > their categories such that Ethical Source is best understood as a > source-available scheme? I believe that's what it seeks to be. > > I'm not obligated to guess, but I'll offer two possibilities: > > 1) "Open Source" has significant brand value. > > 2) "Source Available" is very commonly the model chosen by proprietary > software companies who want to make the source code available but > don't allow distribution, don't accept contributions, etc. That's > pretty far from the 'open source development' methodology. >
_______________________________________________ The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender. Official statements by the Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address. License-discuss mailing list License-discuss@lists.opensource.org http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
