[h34t]

I see an effort like License Zero less as an encroachment on existing "Free and Open Source" licenses and culture, and more as an alternative to behind-closed-door development.

I want to _sustainably_ write software, not for donations but by having people who want to use it, pay for it. If I have to go closed-source to do so, then that's what I'll do. I don't have a big company behind me paying a salary.

But I would prefer to make things in the open, sharing my process; I'd like to allow students and other individuals to benefit from my work, either freely or very affordably; and I'd like to charge for-profit companies a fair price for what they receive.

The open source community tried to trademark the 'open source' label, and failed¹, precisely because it is _too descriptive_: it sounds like a generic way of describing source code that isn't private, not a specialized term with specific ethical and legal implications. But nevertheless the 'Open Source Definition' campaign has been rather effective in limiting use of the term. So I'm not even sure what to call what I want to do: maybe "open-source-ish"?

Some of my work belongs under OSI-approved licenses, but not all of it, and I appreciate that people like Kyle are working, creatively, on alternatives.

1. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

[kemitchell]

For what it's worth, L0 absolutely expects, but does not require, that source will be available, and development will continue with many of the same tools and platforms as MIT- or BSD-licensed code. It also expects _distribution_ to work much the same way. The terms for redistribution of L0 code are more or less the same as BSD.

Long story short, L0 code belongs on GitHub, and L0 packages belong on npm. It won't be hard to extend to other open languages, package systems, and platforms.