Google: Balancing the gorilla
ZDNet: It has been suggested that a big industry player like Google lead an effort on standardizing on something like a "software commons" - the equivalent of "creative commons" for software. This would have the ambitious goal of replacing all existing F/OSS licenses with one framework that explicitly says what is compatible with/can be used with what. Each major existing license steward, like the FSF, would have input and say how their legacy licenses map into the equivalent software commons license.
Stein: Possibly. But recognize that I also fear being labeled as arrogant about it."I want to help what is there rather than attempt to mold it." "We know best." And your use of the term "ambitious" has a corollary of "strongarm" :-) That was one of my worries about limited license selection. There are a number of things in our project hosting which do/will enforce best practices. How much can we do that before we become overbearing? There *is* a line... it can be hard to find though.
As far as leading an effort like that... maybe. I might reply, "Shouldn't the Open Source Initiative be doing that? Aren't they the vendor-neutral ground for best organizing that?" Or maybe the Creative Commons folks could do that?
I'm not disagreeing with the idea, or trying to shirk a task :-) ... but as we get more gorilla-sized, the community is going to become more wary of us. I can already confirm that parts of the open source ecosystem have not appreciated some of the stuff we've done (that impacts their business). So taking a leadership role is touchy, rather than following in the footsteps of others. There are lots of great people, projects, infrastructure, communites, etc. in our Open Source ecosystem... I want to help what is there rather than attempt to mold it.
ZDNet: OSI took a stab at the proliferation problem but these tiers/categories are the best they've come up with so far. I'm not sure we can expect anything else.
Stein: It took them a year to produce that list. Uhm... yeah.
I chose Google Code's list in about 15 minutes, bouncing my thoughts against Chris (DiBona) (http://www.blogger.com/profile/4865114). I'm happy with the result for now, so their list hasn't helped me much. But with that said, I do have some ideas/things-to-do after this discussion.
ZDNet: Aside from the FSF there's a lack of leadership in this area. Should we just let FSF decide?
Stein: You're kidding, right? They aren't leading anything except for GPLv3. No other licensing options. That isn't leading, that is just altering the dominant licensing model.
ZDNet: Personally I'm not comfortable with that given their stance on a number of issues, but maybe that's just me.
Stein: It isn't just you, but I'd rather not provide my (or Google's) thoughts on that right now.
ZDNet: Any parting thoughts?
Stein: I do like some of the ideas this thread has generated. In particular, offering some assistance for new projects' selection of a license ("use one of these three"), extra documentation, and monitoring/querying demand for other licenses over time.
As I mentioned earlier, I am more than happy to discuss this further. I'd be especially keen on how any other license brings something new to the set of philosophies represented by our current set. Do they add something new? We launched just a few months ago, and I'm alright with a slower ramp for now.
[poll id=4]