Thoughts on 'The Open Source Definition'
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: Thoughts on 'The Open Source Definition'
#2This is pretty much a repeat of Richard Stallman’s experiences that led him to founding what would become GNU. Also open source really isn’t just being able to view the code, but the ability to modify, use, and redistribute freely.
Re: Thoughts on 'The Open Source Definition'
#3This is pretty much a repeat of Richard Stallman’s experiences that led him to founding what would become GNU. Also open source really isn’t just being able to view the code, but the ability to modify, use, and redistribute freely.
One of the main things that they have discussed in interviews is trying to create a third pole of licensing structures. There is Free Software, OSS, and then they want to create a 3rd option with non-commercial clauses that everyone can rally behind for people who want to use those sorts of clauses. I think this is a pretty interesting idea and it will be neat to see how far they take it.
Re: Thoughts on 'The Open Source Definition'
#4This is pretty much a repeat of Richard Stallman’s experiences that led him to founding what would become GNU. Also open source really isn’t just being able to view the code, but the ability to modify, use, and redistribute freely.
One of the main things that they have discussed in interviews is trying to create a third pole of licensing structures. There is Free Software, OSS, and then they want to create a 3rd option with non-commercial clauses that everyone can rally behind for people who want to use those sorts of clauses. I think this is a pretty interesting idea and it will be neat to see how far they take it.
From what I’ve seen, the problems that have cropped up with open source software doesn’t seem to be corporate use, but instead companies that operate at scale without doing much to improve the software they are making bank on. AGPLv2 bridges that gap imo. What I’ve noticed is companies that want to use software without the requirements imposed will pay for custom licenses so they can make changes without having to share back. The money from commercial licenses ends up benefiting the projects using the license. Grafana and Minio seem to be doing great in this model.
Re: Thoughts on 'The Open Source Definition'
#5This is pretty much a repeat of Richard Stallman’s experiences that led him to founding what would become GNU. Also open source really isn’t just being able to view the code, but the ability to modify, use, and redistribute freely.
One of the main things that they have discussed in interviews is trying to create a third pole of licensing structures. There is Free Software, OSS, and then they want to create a 3rd option with non-commercial clauses that everyone can rally behind for people who want to use those sorts of clauses. I think this is a pretty interesting idea and it will be neat to see how far they take it.
Many software projects have had licenses with no-commercial-use clauses over the last 30 years or more. If such a license were a good idea, why can't I think of a single example of a project that kept such a license and succeeded or became popular?