4 ms·

Not at all. This license is trying to square the circle of having source code open to individuals who want to tinker with it and at most cover their costs, and

by antt 8y ago

Not at all. This license is trying to square the circle of having source code open to individuals who want to tinker with it and at most cover their costs, and those who want to build multi billion dollar empires out of it. Facebook, Google and Amazon wouldn't be the monopolies they are today if the software cost of spinning up 1 server wasn't the same as the cost of spinning up 1,000,000. This is a very hard problem where intention matters far more than anything concrete. I can run 50 copies of some IoT code and still have it be non-commerial, I can run one copy of linux and have it as the core of a multi million dollar business. Today we have the problem of centralized servers far more than of secret source code. The GPL can't deal with this at all, and the AGPL is one small step in the right direction. Spreading the gains of the internet giants is one way of dealing with the problem of monopoly, one that is much less violent than splitting each company into several smaller ones that should compete against each other, as nearly happened to Microsoft.

jmillikin 8y ago
> This license is trying to square the circle of having source > code open to individuals who want to tinker with it and at > most cover their costs, and those who want to build multi > billion dollar empires out of it. If the goal is to restrict which people use your software, then the solution is and always has been a proprietary license. Placing your software under a proprietary license allows you to say that specific companies can't use it, or people with specific political beliefs. Open-source software can't be restricted to non-commercial use because that would violate the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd). > Today we have the problem of centralized servers far more > than of secret source code. The GPL can't deal with this at > all, and the AGPL is one small step in the right direction. You're free to choose a license that forbids commercial use of your software, or restricts use by businesses above some size threshold. Your software would then be proprietary software, not open-source, even if the entire source repository was public.
- antt 8y ago
  Mayhaps read the article? It covers why this is a very dangerous way of thinking that is destroying the non-corporate open source community. Here's the relevant part: <quote> In the end, license experiments are a threat, but not a threat to open source as defined. They’re a threat to what open source sought, as a movement: recognition and collaboration with business concerns producing proprietary software. Patches to existing licenses and license ideas don’t change how effective unpatched terms remain for other work. Rather, innovation threatens the symbiosis of open source orthodoxy and enterprise-procurement-bound proprietary consumption. Holding permission back reduces what the shepherds of open source can lead back to large company-consumers. Offering a compelling middle way that better balances concerns for smaller players reduces the number of projects that end up under pushover licenses, for lack of better-fitting options, ready for selective assimilation by big-company incumbents. Incumbents that prefer outlast and out-compete to contribute and compensate, when it comes to projects not invented here. </quote> >Your software would then be proprietary software, not open-source, even if the entire source repository was public. This view reminds me of the bad old debate about the fact that GPL was not an open source license. "How can it be open if it forces me to do thing I don't like? The only open license is the MIT license.". A more or less verbatim quote from the 00s on why Linux was doomed and should be classed as proprietary software.
  - jmillikin 8y ago
    I did read the article, twice. It's the article's job to explain how their proprietary license is compatible with the open-source definition, and it does not do so, because it can't.
    - antt 8y ago
      You're being very terse and confrontational. What is your definition of open source? If you go by the definition provided by the Open Source Initiative the following section means the GPL isn't an open license because it requires all software linked to it to be provided under the GPL too: <quote> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. </quote> https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- zzzcpan 8y ago
  > If the goal is to restrict which people use your software, then the solution is and always has been a proprietary license. The goal is never to restrict which people use the software. The goal is to create incentives for individuals to actually make that software, make a living on that software, spend a few decades doing it. Which today requires certain protections from powerful organizations and overall from predatory capitalist incentives. Maybe a license forcing so much opening up, that makes businesses never consider allowing it if they are competing on software in any way, because too much openness makes competing on software automatically unviable, allowing competition to freely enter the market. Parity license seems a bit better at this than AGPL, but still doesn't feel like it's attacking the right issues.
  - jmillikin 8y ago
    > The goal is never to restrict which people use the software. Does your software's license apply equally to a 17 year old in her garage and a Facebook employee writing engagement optimizers? To qualify as an open-source license, the answer must be "yes". Otherwise the license is restricting who can use your software.
    - zzzcpan 8y ago
      It doesn't work like that. A Facebook employee could be restricted by Facebook's own policies from using the software with that license. But that doesn't mean the license is not open-source.
      - jmillikin 8y ago
        You're dancing around the issue. An open-source license is not allowed to distinguish between use by a hobbyist, a small business, and a multinational megacorp. If your license restricts commercial use then it's not an open-source license. The Prosperity Public License restricts commercial use, therefore it is not an open-source license. You can't wordsmith your way out of this.
        8y ago

by antt 8y ago

jmillikin 8y ago

> This license is trying to square the circle of having source > code open to individuals who want to tinker with it and at > most cover their costs, and those who want to build multi > billion dollar empires out of it. If the goal is to restrict which people use your software, then the solution is and always has been a proprietary license. Placing your software under a proprietary license allows you to say that specific companies can't use it, or people with specific political beliefs. Open-source software can't be restricted to non-commercial use because that would violate the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd). > Today we have the problem of centralized servers far more > than of secret source code. The GPL can't deal with this at > all, and the AGPL is one small step in the right direction. You're free to choose a license that forbids commercial use of your software, or restricts use by businesses above some size threshold. Your software would then be proprietary software, not open-source, even if the entire source repository was public.

antt 8y ago
Mayhaps read the article? It covers why this is a very dangerous way of thinking that is destroying the non-corporate open source community. Here's the relevant part: <quote> In the end, license experiments are a threat, but not a threat to open source as defined. They’re a threat to what open source sought, as a movement: recognition and collaboration with business concerns producing proprietary software. Patches to existing licenses and license ideas don’t change how effective unpatched terms remain for other work. Rather, innovation threatens the symbiosis of open source orthodoxy and enterprise-procurement-bound proprietary consumption. Holding permission back reduces what the shepherds of open source can lead back to large company-consumers. Offering a compelling middle way that better balances concerns for smaller players reduces the number of projects that end up under pushover licenses, for lack of better-fitting options, ready for selective assimilation by big-company incumbents. Incumbents that prefer outlast and out-compete to contribute and compensate, when it comes to projects not invented here. </quote> >Your software would then be proprietary software, not open-source, even if the entire source repository was public. This view reminds me of the bad old debate about the fact that GPL was not an open source license. "How can it be open if it forces me to do thing I don't like? The only open license is the MIT license.". A more or less verbatim quote from the 00s on why Linux was doomed and should be classed as proprietary software.
- jmillikin 8y ago
  I did read the article, twice. It's the article's job to explain how their proprietary license is compatible with the open-source definition, and it does not do so, because it can't.
  - antt 8y ago
    You're being very terse and confrontational. What is your definition of open source? If you go by the definition provided by the Open Source Initiative the following section means the GPL isn't an open license because it requires all software linked to it to be provided under the GPL too: <quote> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software. </quote> https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
zzzcpan 8y ago
> If the goal is to restrict which people use your software, then the solution is and always has been a proprietary license. The goal is never to restrict which people use the software. The goal is to create incentives for individuals to actually make that software, make a living on that software, spend a few decades doing it. Which today requires certain protections from powerful organizations and overall from predatory capitalist incentives. Maybe a license forcing so much opening up, that makes businesses never consider allowing it if they are competing on software in any way, because too much openness makes competing on software automatically unviable, allowing competition to freely enter the market. Parity license seems a bit better at this than AGPL, but still doesn't feel like it's attacking the right issues.
- jmillikin 8y ago
  > The goal is never to restrict which people use the software. Does your software's license apply equally to a 17 year old in her garage and a Facebook employee writing engagement optimizers? To qualify as an open-source license, the answer must be "yes". Otherwise the license is restricting who can use your software.
  - zzzcpan 8y ago
    It doesn't work like that. A Facebook employee could be restricted by Facebook's own policies from using the software with that license. But that doesn't mean the license is not open-source.
    - jmillikin 8y ago
      You're dancing around the issue. An open-source license is not allowed to distinguish between use by a hobbyist, a small business, and a multinational megacorp. If your license restricts commercial use then it's not an open-source license. The Prosperity Public License restricts commercial use, therefore it is not an open-source license. You can't wordsmith your way out of this.
      - 8y ago