I think it’s clear that ethically licensed software *won’t* be As Big As They Can Be - by design. I suspect they can still find pretty widespread use and safe adoption.
https://twitter.com/sogrady/status/1392486616707575809
The ml5 code of conduct (github.com/ml5js/Code-of-…) has clauses in it that feel not very different from any SaaS terms of service. They perhaps cover more explicitly, but most (not all) terms of service or proprietary contracts can terminate for convenience.
If I’m a business looking to use ml5.js - I would have real questions about wether that’s a good fit. Not because of fear of running afoul of their ethics clauses (easy enough to avoid) - but more because they clearly say it’s for teaching, creativity, and social good.
That’s enough for me as a consumer of technology to look elsewhere if I don’t fit.
But it’s not exactly new ground to have uncertain clauses, or clauses that evolve quickly outside the main contract. Most proprietary software absolutely does.
At the root of this is the question about spread vs control over how your creation is used. It’s healthy to want to control how your work is used. You made it!
That those controls come out in licensing is fine. I like what ml5 is doing because it’s centered on their community and people. I dislike what Elastic or Mongo have done, because it takes away from people to ensure they get more upside $$ (which I don’t think they do, but 🤷♀️)
The best of open source *always* built intentional communities. That’s where the best of ethical source will come from as well. It’s not the license. It’s the community.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
