From aad3398c8fca18b8c53bcafb15fe3bbd770d0d3c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Steve Klabnik Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 13:03:38 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 1/2] RFC 004: licensing --- text/0004-licensing.md | 43 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+) create mode 100644 text/0004-licensing.md diff --git a/text/0004-licensing.md b/text/0004-licensing.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..cbe0b1c --- /dev/null +++ b/text/0004-licensing.md @@ -0,0 +1,43 @@ +# Licensing + +intermezzOS will use “open source” licensing, rather than “free software” +licensing. + +Specifically, the book will be under the CC0, and the code will be under +MIT/Apache 2.0. + +## Details + +There are two major forces: open source and free software. There are details +between the two, but the biggest comes from what ‘freedom’ means. The crux of +the choice is this: + +> Should someone be allowed to create a closed-source version of intermezzOS? + +Given the goals of intermezzOS, primarily, that learning resources should be +available as widely as possible, I believe the answer to this question is ‘yes’. + +This is a slightly counter-intuitive conclusion. Wouldn’t forcing it to always +be open mean that things would be more open? In a certain sense, this might be +true, but it would restrict what students can do with this material, and that +makes me uneasy. Furthermore, the boot code is derived from @phil-opp’s, and +that’s currently licensed under MIT/Apache 2.0. + +I personally tend to prefer free software, but am not religious about it. I +think that this project is significantly different from the projects that +make me prefer it, and so it’s worth using the more liberal license. + +Furthermore, as a Rust project, most of the Rust world is using MIT/Apache 2.0. +Continuing in that tradition makes sense, and makes it easier to use IP across +the ecosystem. + +## Drawbacks + +If someone were to create a proprietary intermezzOS and make piles of cash off +of it, I would be sad. + +## Alternatives + +We could make the opposite choice and choose the GPL + GFDL. This would require +relicensing the code, as well as licensing the book. And it may drive off some +potential contributors. From f659edaadf157960a466fcea1ac43e4341d15ad7 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Steve Klabnik Date: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 13:17:35 -0500 Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Add alternative: all rights reserved --- text/0004-licensing.md | 4 ++++ 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+) diff --git a/text/0004-licensing.md b/text/0004-licensing.md index cbe0b1c..e7ceee6 100644 --- a/text/0004-licensing.md +++ b/text/0004-licensing.md @@ -41,3 +41,7 @@ of it, I would be sad. We could make the opposite choice and choose the GPL + GFDL. This would require relicensing the code, as well as licensing the book. And it may drive off some potential contributors. + +We could make everything still be “all rights reserved”, as it is now. This makes +some things very murky; is a fork unacceptable then? It’s also a bit inconsistent +to have open source code, but not an open source book, though people do do it.