@larsmb@mastodon.onlineYou see, when
#OSI people talk about "license proliferation" they means "
#copyleft proliferation" that is, in fact, the proliferation of licenses that
protect the work from appropriation.
In fact, OSI approved over 100 mostly equivalent permissive licenses, among which some masterpiece like the
#FairLicense https://opensource.org/license/fair just because they were backed by the right corporation.
They cry about license proliferation only when a
#copyleft license conflict with the interests of their largest sponsors.
Indeed the
#MongoDB #SSPL was not approved while
#Amazon was one of the biggest OSI donor, while
#CAL (that was even more "dangerous" as a copyleft according to the same arguments that got SSPL refused) was approved, because no
#BigTech ever gave a shit about blockchain stuff (for obvious reasons).
The OSI behaviour over the years shows that they cry about license proliferation only to justify their refusals. So if they don't care, you shouldn't either.
Sure, conflicts among licenses exists (for example, you cannot mix code under the
#HackingLicense and code under
#GPL), but right now we need first and foremost to widen the overton windows that OSI gatekeepers try desperately to keep closed.
We have urgent need of new licenses that can protect the commons that we create without restricting their spread and evolution.
Code is Speech.
@lproven@vivaldi.net @tante@tldr.nettime.org 
