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

[Russell McOrmond]

On Thu, Sep 12, 2019 at 10:48 AM 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.
>
>
The problem with this way of separating is that even within "Free" there is
a split between those who are looking to protect the freedom of software
users *from* excessive control by software proprietors, and those who wish
to use their power as software proprietors to enact social policy which the
proprietors believe protects some social wrong/evil.  Both of these camps
might see themselves as protecting against some social wrong/evil, but in
the case of software proprietors wanting to enact social policy it is not
proprietary software that is the wrong (given what they are doing can
itself be seen as strong proprietor software, and thus contradicts those
who see proprietary software as a social wrong/evil).


The same can be said of "Open" where you have the camp that believe in
strongly liberal licenses that waive most rights, and those that believe
that the availability of source code (the code being openly distributed)
should be strongly enforced with non-liberal licenses.


I think some of the new classes of licenses (CAL, AGPL, etc) make
understanding these different camps much harder, as it is not so clear to
me as a participant in Free Software since 1992 (and Open Source since the
term was coined in 1998) which is which.  While the AGPL is promoted as
part of the "free" movement, it contradicts my understanding from the
1990's of the opposition to proprietary software.


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.
>

I agree, but it will take some work to understanding the different
motivations of people within each of these to know which model applies to
which license tool.

tl;dr: People who say "one size fits most" mean "one size fits me."
>

:-)

-- 
Russell McOrmond, Internet Consultant: <http://www.flora.ca/>

Please help us tell the Canadian Parliament to protect our property rights
as owners of Information Technology. Sign the petition! http://l.c11.ca/ict/

"The government, lobbied by legacy copyright holders and hardware
manufacturers, can pry my camcorder, computer, home theatre, or portable
media player from my cold dead hands!" http://c11.ca/own
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20190912/473a7d0d/attachment.html>