,
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.
