Comment by auggierose 2 months ago
I don't see any misunderstanding there. Maybe you misunderstand the basic meaning of words?
Transparency: If I can see the source code, that is certainly pretty much the definition of transparency.
Collaboration: It is easier to collaborate if I can see the source, don't you think? That doesn't define the legal terms under which this collaboration happens, of course, and you should make sure they suit you before you collaborate.
Or at your own benefit. As with any legal agreement you enter into. Also, you might be able to reach out to them, pay them, and obtain a different license. It is easier to see if this is worth the effort by seeing the source code first.
Your confusion isn't mine to solve but fortunately more ink has been spilled already, by folks more capable than I, for just that: https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2018/12/14/open-source-confront...
The confusion seems to be all yours. This article is certainly something. First, they dispute that licenses are actually setting legal terms. If they were not, then there was no point to open-source licensing either. So that argument is idiotic. Secondly, sentences like
> Open source software companies need to come to grips with that uncomfortable truth: their business model isn’t their community’s problem, and they should please stop trying to make it one.
are full of unjustified entitlement. And also not relevant: The companies we are talking about are not open-source companies. They are just companies. Some of them, with source-available software and/or hardware. Some of them, with open-source software and/or hardware. Some of them, with both.
Sure, collab with source-available licenses at your own peril.