[License-discuss] Thoughts on AAL and OSS vs FOSS

[Russell McOrmond]

On Sun, Mar 29, 2020 at 1:39 PM Hillel Coren <hillelcoren at 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org/attachments/20200330/2cb15c99/attachment.html>