4 ms·
Why would a dual "non commercial" and "commercial" license not solve the problem this is claiming to address. Many OSS projects do this now. There is nothing wr
by sriku 8y ago
Why would a dual "non commercial" and "commercial" license not solve the problem this is claiming to address. Many OSS projects do this now. There is nothing wrong with wanting to be compensated for one's work, but without saying how, what are those who adopt the software expected to do?
Let's say the Apache Foundation adopts this for all of its projects. Now what?
- Canada 8y agoAll of the Apache's Foundations popular projects would be forked.
- XiZhao 8y agoI think this is close, but adds the feature of source availability. I’m the first to admit the Commons Clause bolt-on feature isn’t the most elegant. But, if it’s a bad solution, then people can fork it, and that’s okay. I hope we do, and then find a middle ground that works better for everyone. In the longer run, there will need to be a happy middle ground for people to
- ShaneCurcuru 8y agoJust to address the last sentence: the Apache Software Foundation would never adopt Commons Clause. It's antithetical to the ASF's entire licensing strategy, which is to give stuff away for the public good, with as few restrictions on users and redistribution as is legally practical. Personally, people can use whatever license they want for their copyrighted works; that's cool. But the other important issue is: don't call it the "Apache-whatever license", because it is NOT the #Apache-2.0 license. Call it the "Redis License" or whatever else you want, just don't bring the ASF's name into it.