FAQ 2015: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]]?''' | '''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]]?''' | ||
'''A: February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with Reciprocity Licenses allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as embodied in open source licenses. Practically, the reciprocity license terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial clauses are here – http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Support_the_Use_of_Creative_Commons_Non-Commercial_Licenses. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection. | '''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with Reciprocity Licenses allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as embodied in open source licenses. Practically, the reciprocity license terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial clauses are here – http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Support_the_Use_of_Creative_Commons_Non-Commercial_Licenses. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection. | ||
Revision as of 22:31, 20 February 2015
Q: What is OSE's position on the Peer Production License?
A: February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with Reciprocity Licenses allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as embodied in open source licenses. Practically, the reciprocity license terms appear to have unclear distinction between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ users. We agree with the general critique presented by http://blog.runtux.com/2014/05/28/242/. Our own comments on non-commercial clauses are here – http://opensourceecology.org/wiki/Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Support_the_Use_of_Creative_Commons_Non-Commercial_Licenses. If ‘appropriation for the anti-commons capitalist economy’ is the issue that the license aims to address, having corporations buy themselves out of sharing does not address such appropriation. In fact, allowing corporations to buy themselves out of being good citizens can promote such defection. If the companies are required to follow an open, viral license – they cannot appropriate open technology – without sharing derivatives. We want to encourage collaboration – not defection.