"I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil."
Personally I would love to see something named e.g. "corporate drone license", which would allow people in small, dead-end projects in large organizations to use it freely, but at the same time prevent said organizations from using it at scale to charge subscription fees for someone else's IP.
AGPL comes to mind as the closest thing I can think of, but I suppose the concept itself might be impossible to translate to legalese.
All I want is to give back some agency to people whose life circumstances require them to hold on to their current position.
> but at the same time prevent said organizations from using it at scale to charge subscription fees for someone else's IP.
What you are describing is a nonfree license (like the BSL).
Freedom means freedom to profit, too.
It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view. When you release free software, you gift it to the world. It's no longer "yours". Thinking that you have some say in how others use it after that is fundamentally incompatible
with free software ideology.
> fundamentally incompatible with free software ideology
The free software ideology has pretty much been shaped by the FSF and the GNU project, and they pretty much advocate for putting restrictions (like those in the *GPL licenses).
Because the Free software movement it not about doing gifts and not having (developer) restrictions. It is about ensuring end-user rights. And this arguably requires putting restrictions.
What you describe is something else, more in line with what permissive licenses do (which do allow someone else to put restrictions, which is the whole issue). Most permissive license still require attribution though. Your code is still yours. In some jurisdictions, some form of "yours" cannot be given up at all (moral rights).
> It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view.
Is it silly to give it to select people, though? Rhetorical question, because the vast majority of gifts are given like that.
That's what I wish to do. If I ever wish to create a truly open-source project, it will be truly open source.
I've been following Denis Pushkarev's story and to me it looks like nowadays doing open source is asking for headaches which are too much for a single person.
> It's silly to place restrictions on a gift, in my view. When you release free software, you gift it to the world.
You beg the question, though. "When you release free software" already assumes you're releasing free software. The GP doesn't want to release free software, they want to release software with restrictions, as is their right.
I also want my software to be used by hackers and hobbyists for free, but I want anyone making a profit on it to pay me. Why would I donate my work to their for-profit company, when they don't even share alike? That's not even the spirit of open source.
"The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil."
And the hilarious, but necessary exemption:
"I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil."
Personally I would love to see something named e.g. "corporate drone license", which would allow people in small, dead-end projects in large organizations to use it freely, but at the same time prevent said organizations from using it at scale to charge subscription fees for someone else's IP.
AGPL comes to mind as the closest thing I can think of, but I suppose the concept itself might be impossible to translate to legalese.
All I want is to give back some agency to people whose life circumstances require them to hold on to their current position.