1. 17
  1.  

  2. 4

    Commercial use is limited to 90 days, as long as commercial users can readily acquire other licenses from a named source

    Hmm, maybe this could be interesting… but do we really need it? Do we need paid licenses at all? Companies can and will pay for support, that’s the Red Hat model, it works very well when the projects and companies are large enough.

    Honestly, the worst part is the name! “License Zero” sounds like something that provides complete freedom (Unlicense, Zero-clause BSD), not something with extra restrictions, incompatible with any established FOSS licenses.

    If you feel like every day is someone else’s birthday, and being generous is becoming expensive, that’s Open Source at scale. Not a bug.

    You don’t have to be a maintainer or even talk to people at all. If you just throw the code out there under an open source license, with no issue tracker or anything, it could still be very valuable code. Anyone could pick it up and maintain it.

    lack of clear licensing, as with SQLite

    Sounds like FUD. Yeah, SQLite’s original public domain dedication does not include a nice Unlicense-style clause that describes BSD-like terms for jurisdictions that don’t recognize public domain dedications, but it’s still a very very successful project that everyone uses, and no one got sued for choosing SQLite.

    1. 3

      I love how the articles says “the business models are second rate” without any evidence. All of them are working for someone and no business model will work for everyone.

      As a maintainer my rule is simple: I give this code to you for free and so I have no obligation to you. If you want to pay me, great. If you want to pay your employees to make improvements (and contribute them back, or not, whichever), great. If you want me to make improvements for free – I’ll do what I find interesting in the hobby time I have – maybe your thing will make the list, but don’t count on it.