Conversation

I’m planning to open-source

soon—ideally it’s eventually a protocol, not a centralized service! (Once we figure out what “it” is…) I’m trying to balance benefit to the commons with retaining some privilege/flexibility. Tell me why this licensing plan is a bad idea?

11:19 PM · Apr 21, 2021TweetDeck

Replying to

@andy_matuschak

and

@withorbit

n.b. also that I’ll require contributors to sign a CLA just like Clojure’s, which requires shared copyright (not assignment) and pledges all derivative work will be released under FSF/OSI-approved license clojure.org/dev/contributo

Andy Matuschak

@andy_matuschak

Apr 21, 2021

(I’ll also have some trademark guidelines to discourage exploitation.)

Replying to

and

Very exciting!

Replying to

and

great idea!

Replying to

and

Love this! I’m strongly considering a similar approach for Subconscious. I would love to share notes and learn from your experience with this approach.

Andy Matuschak

@andy_matuschak

Apr 21, 2021

I think the biggest objection to this approach is that it’s very highly centralized. The BDFL controls the trademark, the domain names (crucial for a cloud service), and the asymmetric privilege to re-license commercially. Arguably it’s letter-but-not-spirit OSS.