Hacker News Reader

Comment by kemitchell | Hacker News Reader

I’d agree that Prosperity is not an open source license, but I still emphatically maintain that Parity is.

Moreover, the arguments against them I’ve heard haven’t been based in lack of free distribution or OSD 1. Anyone is free to redistribute Prosperity- and Parity-licensed code.

Amateur is ad hominem, and also simply incorrect. I won’t pretend my views are consensus, but I have spent a lot of time with OSD, and the result has been disappointment, not reverence. See:

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regul...

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2019/04/23/OSD-wontfix.html

View on HN

> I’d agree that Prosperity is not an open source license, but I still emphatically maintain that Parity is.

It's very clearly not.

> Moreover, the arguments against them I’ve heard haven’t been based in lack of free distribution or OSD 1.

While I see arguments on OSD 1, I’d agree that's not the clearest problem. Clause 3 of Parity runs directly contrary to OSD 9. (Oddly enough, Parity might just be the odd license that manages to be a Free Software license without being an Open Source license, though, as the Free Software Definition doesn't have anything equivalent to OSD 9, even though the two definitions usually either both fit or both don't fit licenses.)

> It's very clearly not.

You're not the only one who's said it's not, and I'm not the only one who's said it clearly is.

> Clause 3 of Parity runs directly contrary to OSD 9.

There is nothing clear about OSD 9, or at least nothing to do with the reach of copyleft:

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regul...

> Amateur is ad hominem, and also simply incorrect.

You're right. I do owe you an apology for that. Sorry.

I still find the circumstances _around_ license discussions like this to be filled with a frustrating amount of amateur lawyering that can be misleading and dangerous. As an open source developer and content creator, I can't tell you how many times I've come across something in GitHub with a "clever" license and thought "great, now not only can I not use any of this, but I see a whole contributor community who clearly believe they are contributing to an open source license when they very much are not."

> I still find the circumstances _around_ license discussions like this to be filled with a frustrating amount of amateur lawyering that can be misleading and dangerous.

I could not agree more. Except that I'd blame the lawyers, not the amateurs. There will be amateur discussion, because there are far more needs of the kind than affordable and available lawyers to serve them. If the level of amateur discussion bothers lawyers, the lawyers should raise the level of amateur discussion.

Gregg Toland famously told Orson Welles there wasn't anything about the camera he couldn't learn in half a day. That's true of law, too. With a baseline liberal education, if you put in enough days, you've got it. From there, you develop by immersion and participation. Simple as that.

I do what I can. With plain language. With public writing and participation in public projects:

https://fieldguide.kemitchell.com/

https://oss.kemitchell.com/

https://writing.kemitchell.com/2016/09/21/MIT-License-Line-b...

https://blueoakcouncil.org/license/1.0.0

Reply on news.ycombinator.com