Please stop inventing new software licences (2020)

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Definition and Misuse of “Open Source”

  • Many argue “open source” should mean OSI-compliant licenses only; anything else should be called “source available,” “shared source,” etc.
  • Others see that as overly narrow or “childish,” preferring broader notions like “free software” or FOSS.
  • Several comments stress that calling non‑OSI licenses “open source” is misleading marketing that trades on FOSS “street cred.”
  • There is confusion between “open source” (as a formal movement/definition) and the intuitive reading “source code is visible.”

Fairness, Hyperscalers, and Business Models

  • Some maintain that classic OSS assumptions (universities, fair play, contributions back) break down in a cloud/SaaS world where hyperscalers extract value without contributing.
  • Suggestions include using AGPL or not using OSS licenses at all if you want to prevent big cloud vendors from free‑riding.
  • Others respond that licenses are about rights, not “fairness” or “contributing back”; if you don’t like the allowed uses, choose a different license instead of complaining.

Custom / Non‑Standard and Source‑Available Licenses

  • Many warn that bespoke licenses hurt adoption, especially in enterprises where anything non‑standard triggers legal review.
  • Several examples of “source available but not OSS” models are discussed: Microsoft’s reference license, BSL, SSPL, Functional/Fair Source, PolyForm, Unreal, and similar.
  • Some participants want more standardized, vetted non‑OSS licenses (non‑commercial, no‑competition, trial‑only, small‑business‑only), rather than everyone inventing new ones.
  • Others argue that OSI already has too many licenses and that new ones increase complexity and compatibility headaches.

Terms, Ideology, and History

  • Debate over whether “open source” inherently implies open governance; some say yes in practice, others say governance is orthogonal to licensing.
  • Several emphasize the historical difference between “Free Software” (user freedoms, FSF) and “Open Source” (development/quality and business‑friendly framing, OSI).
  • There is disagreement on whether language drift (“open source” = “public source”) should be accepted or resisted; one side sees defending terminology as vital to preserving values, the other as pedantic.

Practicalities and Edge Cases

  • GitHub’s ToS grants limited rights to fork and copy code on GitHub itself, even when project licenses are restrictive, but this may not extend cleanly to local use.
  • Thread notes that public domain and CC0 are not OSI‑approved, highlighting subtle gaps between everyday and OSI notions of “open.”