, 9 tweets, 3 min read Read on Twitter
Okay, a little 'source available' rant follows. As you know, I work with OSS quite a bit at Google and throughout my career since 1995 or so before we even called it that. There's nothing wrong at all with evolution of open source licenses, nor is there anything wrong with ....
..Proprietary software. Source code available licenses like the SSPL et al are not 'evil' or 'wrong' but they're not open source. That's okay! I don't think open source should expand to include licenses with field of use restrictions/limits like those in the SA Licenses... but...
..There is clearly a desire expressed by these Source Available players to work with the larger world. Here's the thing: One of the *great* and useful things about open source licenses is we have uniformity across a given license "type": mit, bsd, gplv2 etc.. and thus ..
... we know what to do when we see them. Every "source available" (yes, not every, but you get my drift) license is a little different and gives up that efficiency. @HeatherMeeker4 is a good lawyer (worked on a lot of these) and I can imagine that she's tried to ....
..evolve these to a 'standard' license, tho the headwinds may be strong. This feels a lot like the pre-@OpenSourceOrg days when people would be 'creative' around licenses (which still happens in javascript circles, with their add-on clause mania) . ... they call it Commercial .
..open source, but it's not open source, not really (And , again, that's fine) but what they're trying to do isn't evil or anything. Anyhow, I'm not going to wade into that stuff, as the @OpenSourceOrg and @jimjag have been very clear about their feelings there, but I would ask
..that we whittle the 'source available' licenses down to a couple of standard ones so that we compliance types can make their adoption more efficient. I will tell you that as it stands, we end up having to evaluate every 'new' license carefully and have rejected the use of ...
..these packages in many of our codebases, which , again, is fine and clearly the intent of the authors, but for those that *Want* broad adoption and maybe aren't ready for full open source, coming up with a common set of 'sa' licenses that don't try to take on the mantle of...
..being open source would be welcome. And , to put a final *super controversial* nail into this thread, you could pull truly restrictive licenses like the AGPL (restricting 'network performance') or OFL (bundling) into your categorization scheme. TY for coming to my ted talk.
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.

Like this thread? Get email updates or save it to PDF!

Subscribe to Chris DiBona
Profile picture

Get real-time email alerts when new unrolls are available from this author!

This content may be removed anytime!

Twitter may remove this content at anytime, convert it as a PDF, save and print for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video

1) Follow Thread Reader App on Twitter so you can easily mention us!

2) Go to a Twitter thread (series of Tweets by the same owner) and mention us with a keyword "unroll" @threadreaderapp unroll

You can practice here first or read more on our help page!

Follow Us on Twitter!

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!

This site is made by just three indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3.00/month or $30.00/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!