Applying the license to software is another example of what Stephen refers to as "hybrid" licensing models, which like the Commons Clause only segment and divide the software commons, and IMHO, do more harm than good.

I think the solution to this is to talk to developers who are applying the Peer Production License to software about the , and why is important, find out what their goals are in choosing this license, and help them brainstorm other ways of achieving those goals. Lecturing them about , I suspect, will not help much.

@strypey #PPL restricts the commercial usage of the good (art, music, book, game) to entities which are *not* a #coop . Network of cooperatives to do #CBPP - Commons Based Peer Production is the aim of PPL, which is derived from CC. CBPP aims to be an alternative to neo-liberalism.

The creator of PPL discourages its use for software - 1. It isn't a license for software. 2. He feels strong copyleft is required in software for CBPP. is a PPL licensed board game.

@demonshreder I'm not against the PPL in principle, and there may well be use cases where it is the right tool. But some have started to use it for software, and I heard a lot of positive talk about this at the two conferences I went to this year. This concerns me, because it means a lot of people who support the software commons do not understand software freedom, or the fragmentation caused by incompatible licensing. See:

Education is needed here

@strypey @demonshreder

Or.. maybe they understand #freedom (software and not) pretty well and don't see a viable license for their own #software.

I agree that education is needed, but often we need to educate to critical thinking.

A few weeks ago I wrote the #HackingLicense that is going to replace #AGPLv3 in most of my #FreeSoftware:

@Shamar @demonshreder *sigh* all this does is vastly reduces the likelihood that anyone will use your software, or re-use your code, because they need to consult a lawyer to be sure they understand what they can and can't do with it. See:'t-Wouldn't

@Shamar @demonshreder
"The proliferation of different free software licenses is a significant problem in the free software community today, both for users and developers."

@Shamar @demonshreder
> "The invalidity or unenforceability of any provision of this License does not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of this License. Such provision is to be reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it valid and enforceable."


@Shamar @demonshreder what does this license do that the GPL or Apache 2.0 doesn't do? Why do we need yet another license?

@strypey @demonshreder

Tons of things:

- keep wrappers free (but not necessarily under the same license)
- let every user inspect, modify or self-host whole applications (not just modified version of the hack)
- setup a limited trust system that let the original hackers upgrade the license if needed and integrate the downstream changes but until they preserve all users freedoms

It took more or less six months to write it.. you should really read it... a toot is not enouth for a copyleft.

@Shamar @strypey

> - keep wrappers free (but not necessarily under the same license)

"This license or compatible ones". It's a copyleft license, so any license compatible with it is itself or a license explicitly mentioned as an exception.

If it can be interpreted as allowing a permissively free software wrapper, that seems to me that it would be either effectively under this license anyway, or a sublicensing away from being just normal weak copyleft.

Basically you'd have the same situation as a copyleft project with permissively-free components.

> - - let every user inspect, modify or self-host whole applications (not just modified version of the hack)

So, copyleft, as reasoned above.

> - setup a limited trust system that let the original hackers upgrade the license if needed and integrate the downstream changes but until they preserve all users freedoms

Part FSF conditional copyright assignment (assignment valid as long as free software), part GPLv3:

"If the Program specifies that a proxy can decide which future versions of the GNU General Public License can be used, that proxy's public statement of acceptance of a version permanently authorizes you to choose that version for the Program."

@clacke @strypey

The compatible licenses for a wrapper are defined in the definition.
You can licenses a wrapper as MIT, but you have to distribute the exact corresponding sources under such license (or you are violating the Hacking License, losing the rights it grants).

So it's not the same with a weak copyleft or a permissive license since:
1. we are talking about wrappers not derived works
2. you have to release any modification chose in a compatible license (as defined in the definitions)

@Shamar @clacke I've read the definition of "wrapper" in your license text. It seems to mean any program that uses the code under your license as a component? So AFAICT you have introduced an entirely new piece of jargon, with no relevant legal definition, which only serves to confuse people trying to understand what your license does and doesn't allow us to do with the licensed code. How does this help anyone?

@Shamar @clacke can you please state the unsolved problem that you wrote your new license to solve? In law, as in code, if you don't understand the problem clearly enough to state it in a simple paragraph, the chances of finding a working solution are very low. If we can understand what problem you are trying to solve, it might help us understand your proposed solution.

@strypey @clacke

Unsolved problems:

1. people are used through #software they don't understand because
1.1 it's too primitive
1.2 it's unreadable
1.3 it's not accessible (#SaaS)
1.4 it's illegal to modify (#DRM)

2. #hackers are marginalized
2.1 boring #research
2.2 minimal #condivision
2.3 #GroupThink everywhere

Solution: turn people to #hackers.

Method: spread a software #License that maximize users' #freedom to #hack and #learn, so that nobody can sell rights that people own from birth.


@Shamar @clacke I sympathize with your concerns. But almost none of them are problems that can be solved by a copyright license, and of those that can, the already solves them (eg / ). I shared those links earlier to point out that many people have already trodden this path of vanity licenses, and no good comes of it. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it, I guess.


I would be curious to know what make you think that I do not know such history?

@Shamar @strypey
He didn't say you don't know the history, but that you did not learn from it, whether you know it or not.

@Wolf480pl @strypey

Fine. 🙂

I'd like to know what in the license make him think I didn't learn from the history of the matter (that I actually know a "little bit"...) and what I'm missing.

The fact that people have to read carefully the license before using my software is actually a feature: it spreads critical thinking.

@strypey @clacke


> those that can, the #AGPL already solves them

I can't do such act of #Faith.

I think that there is ALWAYS room for improvements in human artifacts, until people stop to care.

But note, I'm not against acts of Faith! Feel free to stick to AGPL.

OTOH, I'd appreciate if you wouldn't dismiss six months of work as "vanity license" without spending the time to read it critically. Yet, I don't care that much: I just thought it might have been an interesting conversation.

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon - NZOSS

This Mastodon instance is provided gratis by the NZ Open Source Society for the benefit of everyone interested in their own freedom and sharing with others. Hosting is generously provided by Catalyst Cloud right here in Aotearoa New Zealand.