Why don't we have a permanent OSS license?

clear.dev

4 points·mathewpregasen··5 comments

"designed to service commercial OSS projects that are making a strong commitment to OSS, but retaining the otherwise commercial aspects of their business" == Linux Foundation

I'm not sure why the post dismisses this.

A little piece I wrote. I might add more to it later, but I'd love any feedback. I feel like I might be missing something.

1. This effectively already exists in the form of organizations like the Apache Software Foundation.

2. Companies publishing OSS don’t usually suffer enough skepticism for them to be willing to give up control over their trademark.

3. In some jurisdictions, copyright isn’t transferrable, and only licensing is allowed [0]. The original creator always retains the copyright. You seem to be talking more about the branding/trademark, however, which is a different thing.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_transfer_agreement

this is helpful feedback, thank you. Could you elaborate on 1 though?

Many Apache projects are predominantly developed and maintained by companies who use them to implement and/or sell services and integrations for them. The Apache branding ensures that if a company decides to monetize a proprietary fork, they’ll have to market it under a different name: https://www.apache.org/foundation/marks/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com