1. 1
  1.  

  2. 5

    I was pretty disappointed by this. First, it’s a blatant ad for the license that this lawyer worked on, but also it shows a shocking lack of familiarity with MIT and BSD licenses, where they’ve been used in practice, where they’ve been reviewed in the courts, and exactly what things mean. In my opinion this piece crossed an ethical line. I’ll be aggressively avoiding Blue Oak as a result.

    1. 1

      I totally agree with you and @aewens that this is propaganda for Blue Oak.

      However the author knows his stuff on MIT and BSD quite well.

      As for Blue Oak, the only thing I like about it is its language.
      It’s a permissive license designed to remove ANY burden on corporations that want to exploit the free labor of the open source developers.

      It’s not designed to maximize the CREATION of Commons, but their exploitation and privatization. So I agree that avoiding Blue Oak is a good idea if it doesn’t align with your interests and values.

    2. 4

      It looks like this might be an ad for Blue Oak, rather than reporting on MIT and BSD being deprecated. See also.

      1. 2

        Yeah, it is. He’s their Executive Director, which he mentions this at the end of his article advertisement.

      2. 1

        Interesting. I’ve used MIT before on small side projects. I’ll have to revisit that at some point.

        1. 1

          /dev/lawyer is a pretty decent FOSS law blog. SO, while he is writing about a license he helped write, it’s not surprising.

          Headline is a bit clickbaity, though, to that I’ll agree.

          He does point out some of the fundamental problems with the licenses he discusses.