Promote "hard to violate" to the Definition #64
Conversation
chadwhitacre
force-pushed
the
cwlw/update-definition
branch
from
90900e2 to
a7c734d
Compare
| an undue burden on the user to monitor their compliance with your license (any | ||
| compliance checks should be built into your software itself). It should also be | ||
| adopted at more than one company, at least. | ||
| stringent in order to avoid license proliferation. Uour license must meet the |
| adopted at more than one company, at least. | ||
| stringent in order to avoid license proliferation. Uour license must meet the | ||
| [Fair Source Definition](https://fair.io/about/), and it should be adopted at | ||
| more than one company, at least. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Mentioned here but may be worth being lax on "adopted at more than one company" for now if we want to see a more diverse license pool outside of BUSL variations.
Probably a separate issue but figured I'd mention it.
| </li> | ||
| <li>undergoes delayed Open Source publication (DOSP).</li> | ||
| <li>undergoes delayed Open Source publication (DOSP); and</li> | ||
| <li>does not put an undue burden on the user to monitor compliance.</li> |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like this uses heavy language compared to the other points. It'll need clarification anyways (which we have below), so might as well use simpler wording imo. It also reads like an anti-feature compared to the others that are more like features, or at least positives.
Maybe something simple like "is easy to comply with"? Maybe too simple?
|
I agree with @ezekg's point about the tone of this point as compared to the others. Language aside -- I think there are likely a number of folks who consider the GPL to be an undue compliance burden. Certainly there are many GCs who have issues with GPL for this reason. Given that the GPL is OSI-approved, and the Fair Source Definition allows for DOSP to OSI-approved copyleft licenses like GPL, this fourth point could read to be self-contradictory depending on one's view of GPL. |
Reticketing from #60. I've been wanting to propose this for a while now. It's weird to have this in the README and not in the Definition. If we want it, let's embrace it. I think we want it, because it is important to building trust with people using Fair Source software under the freedom part of the licenses.