License Zero: a new "mostly open source" license that shifts the power balance toward maintainers so we can get paid https://writing.kemitchell.com/2017/09/12/The-License-Zero-Manifesto.html …
-
-
Congrats, bro
-
Sounds sarcastic. It seems ok for me to give my position on something.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Really curious if you have an opinion on how to get paid for OSS w/ permissive licenses. Is it just “consult/train/etc”, or something else?
-
For open source projects with enough usage for any model to work, a coalition of companies that each dedicate some headcount to the project.
-
In order for this to work, companies already have to be invested in the project, and non-permissive licenses work against that goal.
-
1: I'd also add that OSS works better when contributors are working on (or closely with) real world applications of the OSS.
-
2: So you get benefits from large apps dedicating headcount and staff time to improving the OSS they use.
-
3/3: And you don't need every company using the OSS to contribute back in order for this model to work.
-
TLDR people drastically undercount the $ in existing allocated headcount when talking about the alleged "open source funding crisis"
-
That approach seems viable - but also seems to let a lot of value generation go uncaptured. Not making an “it’s not fair” argument, but /1
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
L0-NC isn't OSD-conformant, isn't OSI-approved, and never will be. L0 is very clear on that point. At the same time, rare is the dev who's heard of OSD. That's not what "open source" means to most today.
-
L0 isn't close to what many people think open source is. Call it "source available" if you need a description.
-
I agree with your tweet. But I don't think copyleft software, or even permissive-licensed software with attribution conditions, is close to what many ill-informed people think "open source" means, either.
-
I don't think copyleft is functional OSS. I wrote this years ago on the topic of copyleft (it's applicable):https://www.google.com/amp/yehudakatz.com/2010/01/05/the-maximal-usage-doctrine-for-open-source/amp/ …
-
Interesting piece. If I have one criticism, it boils down to the fact that the words "money", "support", "sustain", "job", "hire", and "pay" don't appear anywhere in it. They're not variables in any of the equations in the system you're solving.
-
"So Open Source licenses make amazing tools of selfless, total generosity, if you come from a situation free of worldly concern, and that’s giving you can afford."https://licensezero.com/manifesto
-
For reference, I grew up poor, and was making barely a living wage a year before I started contributing to OSS.
-
So I don't think this analysis is quite correct. OSS can help uplift some people (but not all people) through career advancement.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
I've proposed a stronger-than-AGPL copyleft license, approved as an option for dual licensing through
@LicenseZero, to OSI for review. It's in development. But I believe it will be OSD-conformant. -
1: These kinds of dual licenses have the problem the original GPL was trying to combat: someone who contributes to such a project ...
-
2/2: may nevertheless be unable to use it in their new job unless they can convince the CFO of their company to shell out.
-
Noncommercial licenses cross OSD field-of-use nondiscrimination and Free Software freedom 0. No surprise there. The draft reciprocal public license option is the better analogy to GPL: https://github.com/licensezero/licensezero-reciprocal-public-license/blob/simplify/LICENSE.mustache …
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.