On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:39 PM Hillel Coren <hillelco...@gmail.com> wrote:

> It's easy to assume that by deprecating attribution based licenses
> developers will either choose a different OSI approved license or change
> their software from being labeled 'OSS' to 'Source-available software'. I'd
> argue in practice many developers (ourselves included) would instead choose
> to share less code.
>

Can you explain to me why it should concern us if people wishing to
discriminate decide to publish less code rather than adopt a
non-discriminatory OSI approved license?

While I don't consider publishing software or its source code to itself be
a public good, I believe reducing the harm (though waiving of rights
implied by most OSI approved licenses) from the excessive control software
authors have over society is a public good.

Discriminatory software (IE: proprietary software) , with or without source
code being available, has existed for a long time.  If you wish to adopt a
proprietary business model and associated licensing that is your choice.

BTW: I have no idea how you are trying to define OSS such that it is
different from FOSS or FLOSS or other acronyms to describe the same thing.
_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not 
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. 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

Reply via email to