4 ms·
While, I understand the sentiment of not liking companies basically reselling open source software. It does restrict the rights of users on what they can do. H
by anfilt 8y ago
While, I understand the sentiment of not liking companies basically reselling open source software. It does restrict the rights of users on what they can do.
However, I have also never consider GPL entirely open source it restricts someones right to not publish changes they make. It's also definitely a reason some people choose not to use the GPL.
If we want to get philosophical the only true open source license is release code to the public domain. No restrictions/requirements at all.
However, there is one big issue with this "Commons Clause". This section here "whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software". Your not allowed to sell services even if you modify it to add some unique features. If those depend substantially on the software. If it just said "entirely" instead also including "substantially". The problem is the word "substantially" is quite vague, and if changes or additions you make can't run without their software which is pretty much any software modifications/modules, scripts ect... that have software licensed under this as a dependency.
Let's say someone licensed an operating system under this license. You develop an application which uses the OS's system calls. Your application does something useful, so you wish to sell it as a service, but because your application can't run without calling those system calls. It may be legally counted as "substantially" deriving value from the licensed software, and you can't sell your own work.
While, I understand some licenses are a compromise of the only license that ensures all freedoms which is public domain. These compromises either tend to try help open source or just ensure that software is free for everyone using it. Since something in public domain can be resold, and the secondary users of that may never know the source code exists. Some just prevent someone else from claiming that they made the software.
However, as I mentioned at the start, I understand why some people do not like the idea of company just taking an open source project and selling it. However, this license goes way too far. It places what I call unreasonable restrictions on the users. It's in need of a major rework.
- mr_toad 8y ago> No restrictions/requirements at all. It’s been tried. Unix vendors would take publically available code (MIT’s X Windows), close it off, and prevent system administrators from touching it, or only release it under NDA. Freedom for the vendors, not for the users.
- anfilt 8y agoI did say the following above: "Since something in public domain can be resold, and the secondary users of that may never know the source code exists." I am quite aware of that issue. All I was saying any license other than public domain puts some sort restriction/requirement on users. Vendors are users too, and ideally they would not try close off open source code. So a good OSS license should unobtrusive, and reasonable to users who are not trying engage in shenanigans. These are obviously restrictions since the license tries to prevent underhanded behavior, but I woulds say a reasonable compromises since we don't live in a perfect world where everyone is honest. Despite it's confusing name I would say this "commons license" was attempt to stop what they see has underhanded behavior. However, as I said before it's a comprise too large since really does have the potential limit a lot of freedoms. I would say it's anything but unobtrusive. However, the OP author of the article also appears dismissive or closed to any criticism.