4 ms·

This is a very important topic to figure out. IANAL I think there is a very simple solution: use the 'Notice clause' of the Apache 2 License to require cloud u

This is a very important topic to figure out. IANAL I think there is a very simple solution: use the 'Notice clause' of the Apache 2 License to require cloud users to put some unflattering notice in their documentation: If the Work includes a "NOTICE" text file as part of its distribution, then any Derivative Works that You distribute must include a readable copy of the attribution notices contained within such NOTICE file, excluding those notices that do not pertain to any part of the Derivative Works, in at least one of the following places: within a NOTICE text file distributed as part of the Derivative Works; within the Source form or documentation, if provided along with the Derivative Works; or, within a display generated by the Derivative Works, if and wherever such third-party notices normally appear. Offer the option to purchase a license to the software without the requirement to display the notice.

gregwebs 8y ago
Cloud providers aren't actually distributing open source software though unless it is AGPL. So I think this is a good idea, but you also need a better AGPL license too.
- danieldk 8y ago
  I agree that (again IANAL) the clause would have to be extended to something like 'distribute or perform' rather than purely focusing on distribution. But I think it could be a compromise where software can still be fully open source, while calling out cloud providers that are not contributing back (well, actually, they'd have to call out themselves by putting the notice somewhere visibly ;)). But I don't think they are really listening to other suggestions. This seems to be an effort backed by some VCs with the goal of getting the benefits of open source ('it's just like open source, so please contribute'), while having an exclusive opportunity to monetize 'the commons'.
  - gregwebs 8y ago
    Thinking about this more, this approach is innovative but awkward. The point of licenses is that they provide a legal basis. "Calling out cloud providers" has no legal basis, but is instead an attempt at societal shaming. Shaming should be achievable without using licenses. But I would rather have legal licenses than a shaming system. If we want contributions back, lets make a better AGPL. If we don't want cloud providers to sell the software, lets have the Commons Clause (but just don't annoy everyone by prepending Apache).

gregwebs 8y ago

Cloud providers aren't actually distributing open source software though unless it is AGPL. So I think this is a good idea, but you also need a better AGPL license too.

danieldk 8y ago
I agree that (again IANAL) the clause would have to be extended to something like 'distribute or perform' rather than purely focusing on distribution. But I think it could be a compromise where software can still be fully open source, while calling out cloud providers that are not contributing back (well, actually, they'd have to call out themselves by putting the notice somewhere visibly ;)). But I don't think they are really listening to other suggestions. This seems to be an effort backed by some VCs with the goal of getting the benefits of open source ('it's just like open source, so please contribute'), while having an exclusive opportunity to monetize 'the commons'.
- gregwebs 8y ago
  Thinking about this more, this approach is innovative but awkward. The point of licenses is that they provide a legal basis. "Calling out cloud providers" has no legal basis, but is instead an attempt at societal shaming. Shaming should be achievable without using licenses. But I would rather have legal licenses than a shaming system. If we want contributions back, lets make a better AGPL. If we don't want cloud providers to sell the software, lets have the Commons Clause (but just don't annoy everyone by prepending Apache).