FAQ 2015: Difference between revisions
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
=='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''== | =='''Q: What is OSE's position on the [[Peer Production License]] (PPL)?'''== | ||
'''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL 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 licenses are here – | '''A:''' February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL 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 licenses are here – [[Why_OSE_Doesn%27t_Use_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 22:40, 20 February 2015
(FAQ has more content, but needs serious cleanup.)
Q: What is OSE's position on the Peer Production License (PPL)?
A: February 18, 2015. Philosophically, OSE doesn’t agree with PPL allowing companies paying so they do not have to share. This is not consistent with creating a culture of open collaboration and sharing, as indended in open source licenses. Practically, the PPL 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 licenses are here – Why_OSE_Doesn't_Use_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.