Niche Twitter opinion request!
Soliciting thoughts on “source-available” licenses. When are they most/least appropriate? Are there better/worse specific licenses for certain circumstances? Best writing on the subject?
Conversation
Context here is: I would like to encourage some avenues of mash-up and collaboration for , and eventually I’d like to actually-OSS everything. But I still feel insecure enough in my crowdsourced funding model that I want to leave some options open for the near future.
Think the model is Roam. Maintain core of Andy-product, expose API and encourage plug-in community, evolve a selection into official codebase over time. If this works it will attract funding, however you want to spin that.
1
2
More importantly, your ideas are awesome and incredibly unclear, like Roam. You are too smart. Opening to crowdsource *for this* both exposes mental models of userbase, less smart than yours, and clarifies essential features and operating modes.
1
1
Show replies
Quote Tweet
ECC released its implementation of Halo 2 under the TGPPL, a new type of open-source license.
electriccoin.co/blog/introduci
#Zcash $ZEC
Show this thread
1
1
Show replies
already linked you to all of ’s writing which I very much recommend.
I’m a fan of the Prosperity License — it’s a free for non-commercial use model
1
2
after reading r0ml.medium.com/free-software- i feel like i should change my licenses to something that isn't based on mit, did you mention one that 'opens up after two years'? what do you think about this prosperity license for my projects? what do you think about 'ethical'?
1
Show replies