I read this article recently <https://lipu.dgold.eu/original-sin> & I’m curious if any of these copyFARleft licenses have a place. They don’t qualify under FSF or OSI as “free” software, but that definition has always been muddy & required a lot of explanation. There’s always reason to question how things are done & some guidance would help me understand the ramifications of choosing such a license–where generally they are free for laborers & collectives, but not for those seeking profit specifically. Whose freedoms are we aiming for? And if there isn’t a right/wrong answer, should we see something like the License Zero options like Parity <https://paritylicense.com> & Prosperity <https://prosperitylicense.com> listed even if they are not GPL-compatible? -- toastal ไข่ดาว | https://toast.al PGP: 7944 74B7 D236 DAB9 C9EF E7F9 5CCE 6F14 66D4 7C9E
I've written briefly on the subject of ethical source, a branch of copyfarleft, here: https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/public-inbox/%3CC125C6RFZ9JQ.2PYJMAKMD2F8A%40homura%3E I can elaborate more on the specific licenses as well. First, to some extent, these might be considered crayon licenses, so all of those arguments apply. Regarding the parity license: the mainstream approach to copyleft with respect to how the copyleft clauses are triggered depend to some extent on the exact nature of copyright law; if they could be stronger then I suppose they would be. There are constraints with respect to "distribution" and other such invocations in the law that copyleft licenses tend to be modeled around. I would wish to see an IP lawyer weigh in on this approach, I suspect it does not really work (and is probably not a meaningful improvement over mainstream copyleft in any case). Regarding the Prosperity license, see the following: https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your-monopoly.html General commercial use is an important feature of free software, not a flaw.