graybeard

239 readers

2 users here now

Stories, links, experiences from calculator manipulators with a few grays in their beard

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Do we really need another non-open source available license? (www.theregister.com)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

6 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I've seen FSL making the rounds in the news. I think this opinion article gives a good abstract and I agree with the general consensus that the license is crap.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Thank you for such a thoughtful response. I see where you're going with this, but have to disagree. I guess it's a purely ideological stance in my case.

If a company wants to establish itself - stay closed source. Source can always be made open later on, when the competition stage is established. I feel like these half-measure devices are trying to pull in the good will by saying "look at me, I'm open source!", while trying to be full-on profit driven.

Don't get me wrong - I don't have an issue with a company trying to make a living. My issue is with pretentiousness.

[–] WFloyd 4 points 1 year ago

That's fair - I'd much prefer a standard license anyway, and it does come across as a bit of a PR stunt in this case.

It depends a great deal on what type of software it is I suppose. If your product is not useful to anyone but corporate entities (e.g. online auction platform), or if you're the dominant player in a market (e.g. Linux), the license has minimal benefit - either be open source or don't. If you're in a space with both personal and corporate use, and your product is disruptive, maybe it makes more sense then. But it starts to get kinda niche.