A sober analysis of the #CommonsClause license from a business perspective. Applying the #
Applying the #PeerProduction 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 #FourFreedoms, and why #SoftwareFreedom 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 #OpenSource, 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.
http://commonspoly.cc/ 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 #PlatformCooperatives 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
I agree that education is needed, but often we need to educate to critical thinking.
"The proliferation of different free software licenses is a significant problem in the free software community today, both for users and developers."
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.
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.
@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 #AGPL already solves them (eg #SaaSS / #DRM). 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?
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.
> 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.