[License-discuss] [License-review] Coherent Open Source - Getting underway next Friday

[Bruce Perens]

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 <gyehuda at 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.lindberg at 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-review at 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-review at lists.opensource.org
>>>
>>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-review_lists.opensource.org
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> License-discuss mailing list
>> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>>
>> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>>
> _______________________________________________
> License-discuss mailing list
> License-discuss at lists.opensource.org
>
> http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20191017/c73808f4/attachment.html>