[palunon]

What? Creative Commons is good, but [it wasn't meant for code](https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...), and the No-Derivative and/or Non-Commercial Licenses are specifically incompatible with free and/or open source software.

Specifically, it violates freedom 3 of the FSF definition (redistribute changes), and section 3 of the OSI definition (Derived Works). This freedom is at the core of what FOSS is.

And that's before the violation of freedom 0, "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose" of the non commercial licenses.

[perching_aix]

I think that's specifically what they refer to by open source "having become" "a caricature of its ideas".

[djur]

FSF and OSI have been critical of "source available" licenses for decades, so if open source is a caricature now, it always has been.

[winocm]

The only thing I have learned here is that apparently software licensing is very difficult and

Makes me wonder what the general statistics are on individuals ignoring licensing entirely.

Time to go make the ultimate SPDX-License-Identifier with an OR clause between every single entry.

[perching_aix]

I'd personally agree with that (hence my quotes around the having become part), although I'm not nearly caught up with the lore enough to know whether equating open source with the FSF and OSI is fair. Also can't vouch for the thread starter's opinion of course.