Open ralexander-phi opened 1 month ago
ralexander-phi
commented
1 month ago I'll need to look at what prevents a non-profit from doing things outside their stated mission. Signal could presumably claim that switching to a non-open source license (especially a source available one) helps them accomplish their "protect free speech and enable secure comms" goal. Do they have any software that's not fully open source currently?
ralexander-phi
commented
1 month ago Consider software released by non-profits that don't include "open source" in their mission. St. Jude Children's Research Hospital is a non-profit but their goal is medical research. If they wanted to re-license, commercialize, or sell their projects that currently are open source they presumably could do so as long as they use the funds towards medical research.
As such, I don't think I can use a blanket statement that non-profits provide safety. I'll need to review mission statements.
Kubernetes and Signal are likely rated incorrectly (high risk). Both the Linux Foundation and Signal Technology Foundation have "open source" written into their mission statements.
Signal: TO DEVELOP OPEN SOURCE PRIVACY TECHNOLOGY THAT PROTECTS FREE EXPRESSION AND ENABLES SECURE GLOBAL COMMUNICATION.
Linux Foundation: THE LINUX FOUNDATION SUPPORTS THE CREATION OF SUSTAINABLE OPEN SOURCE ECOSYSTEMS BY PROVIDING FINANCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE, EVENTS, TRAINING, AND SUPPORTING PROGRAMS TO PROGRESS OPEN INNOVATION. (SEE CONTINUATION ON SCHEDULE O).WORKING TOGETHER WITH ITS MEMBERS AND COMMUNITIES OF OPEN SOURCE ENGINEERS, THE LINUX FOUNDATION AND ITS PROJECTS FORM THE MOST AMBITIOUS AND SUCCESSFUL INVESTMENT IN THE CREATION OF SHARED TECHNOLOGY.