I have no objection to this license existing, but: 1. Don't call it OSS. 2. I won't use it for my work. 3. I won't depend on it in my work.
Restrictive licenses, especially ones that introduce mandatory $ costs, sharply reduce the network effects of ecosystems.
-
-
Who's going to depend on mkdirp if users of your software need to pay a license to mkdirp (especially given the ease of reimplementing)
-
Why does anyone find, install, and use mkdirp, given the ease of reimplementing? What if the price is $5, and you're already licensing a dozen other packages in one transaction?
-
It's a dependency of another package.
-
Why did the author of the depending package bother to find, install, and use mkdirp, given the ease of reimplementing?
-
Because the network effects of this kind of decentralizing are massive and make ecosystems robust. Many people don't want to go back.
-
@npmjs gives us global distribution, a common namespace, a web interface, and a CLI for read and write. Why can't those network effects apply to developer comp?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Permissive licenses, what Free Software folks sometimes call "pushover licenses", sharply reduce inventives for any present-tense, specific personal or community compensation.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.