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

[Gil Yehuda]

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190912/b200d56d/attachment.html>