What are our requirements on open source?

This is a subset of the Objectives discussion that I would like to see if we have basic agreement on up front before spending a lot more time discussing other things (personally). And I don't mean what is our position personally in general, more what should the OAE specifically say about requirements for open source. What level of conformance do we need to meet OAE objectives.

Hope that is OK with people, I have witnessed really promising efforts go under partly because people weren't willing to honestly discuss their differences to see if they had enough unity to join forces productively. So I think it is important to address the elephant in the room when it appears.

History:

We had a very long but very informative discussion in the CTA about open source, and were not able to come to an agreement that was workable for all of us. I'm very glad we had it, but do not want to repeat it, as all of us have a lot of work to do. https://www.hylo.com/p/12131 (not required reading) And there was an honest and useful follow up CTA discussion here took the earlier discussion to a higher level. https://www.hylo.com/p/13648 (again not required reading)

Here was my conclusion of the somewhat separate paths people were interested in there:

1. CTA creates or connects software into ecosystems that can be used by groups on the ground trying to change the current system. The focus is more external, on the needs of groups that will use the software, most of whom don't develop software themselves. None of these groups are "customers" in the market sense, although it is best to move towards all these groups actually supporting development of their technical infrastructure as commons.

2. CTA provides a space where people can meet and join together to create groups that seek to create change by their internal organization just by existing (peer based, fair, experimental new economic forms, etc.). These groups can be formed to create livelihoods and positive democratic work environments for the members, and this is their focus, more internal. These groups could have customers in the capitalist marketplace, for example.

The first one will require that all software is open source, and a bunch of other things, which are required to properly serve the groups we support. The second one doesn't really require open source to meet its objectives.

My opinion: Both are valid for the CTA and for improving the world. The OAE however needs to live in the first one.

So, let's try something out. I don't think we need to get very technical or religious about it, and I do think that both very open licenses and efforts to close off the code in the fringes (to keep capitalists from stealing it) are fine.

Here are some things I stole from earlier discussions.

• Let's try to focus on the "ends" not the "means", like "any community served by the software is able to obtain the source code and their data whenever they want". Another "end" is that people making software for the ecosystem have access to others' source code - a minimum requirement of working collaboratively.

• We commit to openness of source code, content and data through open or reciprocity-based licensing. (modified from the CTA doc)

• 6 freedoms (1) to run the program, (2) to study and change the program in source code form, (3) to redistribute exact copies, (4) to distribute modified versions, (5) to have access to their account data, (6) to use without charge for non-commercial purposes. (long history, but thanks to Greg for bringing forward)

So first, does everyone basically agree that OAE software must be open source?

Then if so, I'd appreciate if people who have studied licensing could help with wording. For example, does "reciprocity-based licensing" give enough leeway to use the licensing work being done in the P2PF? I'm fine with anything resembling any of the above, although I might personally take off (6) in the 6 freedoms.

When a clearer statement emerges, I'll start a proposal.