5 ms·

If you don't like software with these new style licenses, then don't use software with these new style licenses. Explain what it is that apparently so deeply vi

by _wmd 8y ago

If you don't like software with these new style licenses, then don't use software with these new style licenses. Explain what it is that apparently so deeply violates your right to exist, but puritanical screaming and finger-pointing black & white contrasts never really convinces people of anything. All these rants are lame. The best comment I've heard so far w.r.t. CC is how it complicates acquisition of software by businesses. That's a hugely legit complaint -- but the same complaint applied to the GPL not more than 2 decades ago. Companies adjusted before, assuming value exists in this new breed of license, they'll adjust again. Meanwhile as a free software author, I'm very happy to see smaller companies experimenting with methods to protect their work in whatever way they see fit. Hopefully something "socially acceptable" comes from all this that might be useful to me at some stage in future. Finally it's worth remembering that there is a HUGE degree of freedom to explore between closed source, pay-only software and free software as we have it today. I have yet to see a recent example of a license that removes what for me is the greatest benefit of all: the ability to fix and debug things without opening a ticket. Fundamentalist shouting matches erupting every time someone tries something new reminds me of another modern debate - religion, and like there, the loudest and most annoying rarely have meaningful new information to share ---- There is another angle that seems very interesting. Industry consolidation and typical policy within large companies towards employees working on free software ("you can't unless it's approved & we own copyright") means 'the movement' that existed in the 90s is all but dead and gone. Any big real development that happens in the open typically happens because some employer is explicitly paying an employee to advance their agenda through technical means (see e.g. Kubernetes). To me, a new license that not only incentivized but made practical and sustainable large software projects independent of those large consolidated employers is far more valuable than not having to toss a few dimes in the pot if that software is used in some circumstances where profit is made.

staticassertion 8y ago
> Meanwhile as a free software author, I'm very happy to see smaller companies experimenting with methods to protect their work in whatever way they see fit. Hopefully something "socially acceptable" comes from all this that might be useful to me at some stage in future. Me too. I like to see companies trying out these ways of making OSS a reasonable choice.
cameronhowe 8y ago
His problem with them is in the title of the post. If you want to do something that is non-free, don't call it open source or free software, both words have accepted definitions, by osi and fsf/gnu respectively. Your reply is entirely off-topic.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  I'm playing devil's advocate here, but why does "free software" only apply to some licenses with restrictions? why are the restrictions that the GPL or AGPL puts on you okay to still be called "free", but Apache 2 + Common Clause has restrictions that aren't "free"?
  - detaro 8y ago
    For the term "Open Source", there is a list of criteria which from all I can tell goes back to pretty close to the creators of the term, and which is quite widely accepted: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - Klathmon 8y ago
      I get that, but I'm asking why we adhere to that? I'd be more than happy to change the definition of "Open Source" if it means that more companies will participate, as doing so won't entirely rob them of most of their income from that product. In fact, I'd consider it a significant improvement over the concept of "open core" that has been becoming more and more popular, where the core 80% of a product is open source, but the last 20% isn't, making it so you need to either pay or build that last 20% yourself to use the software. Contrast with an "open source, except you can't sell it", you'd be more likely to get the whole 100% of the software "open sourced" (as in all other aspects of open-source code, without the ability to sell it), people not using it for profit can benefit immensely, and those who are using it for profit can license it like anything else. Ostracizing the latter because they don't adhere to strict definitions seems wrong, especially when pretty much all of the alternatives (aside from going full GPL/AGPL) means there is less code out there usable by people, and less users will have the ability to see the code they use.

by _wmd 8y ago

staticassertion 8y ago

> Meanwhile as a free software author, I'm very happy to see smaller companies experimenting with methods to protect their work in whatever way they see fit. Hopefully something "socially acceptable" comes from all this that might be useful to me at some stage in future. Me too. I like to see companies trying out these ways of making OSS a reasonable choice.

cameronhowe 8y ago

His problem with them is in the title of the post. If you want to do something that is non-free, don't call it open source or free software, both words have accepted definitions, by osi and fsf/gnu respectively. Your reply is entirely off-topic.

Klathmon 8y ago
I'm playing devil's advocate here, but why does "free software" only apply to some licenses with restrictions? why are the restrictions that the GPL or AGPL puts on you okay to still be called "free", but Apache 2 + Common Clause has restrictions that aren't "free"?
- detaro 8y ago
  For the term "Open Source", there is a list of criteria which from all I can tell goes back to pretty close to the creators of the term, and which is quite widely accepted: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - Klathmon 8y ago
    I get that, but I'm asking why we adhere to that? I'd be more than happy to change the definition of "Open Source" if it means that more companies will participate, as doing so won't entirely rob them of most of their income from that product. In fact, I'd consider it a significant improvement over the concept of "open core" that has been becoming more and more popular, where the core 80% of a product is open source, but the last 20% isn't, making it so you need to either pay or build that last 20% yourself to use the software. Contrast with an "open source, except you can't sell it", you'd be more likely to get the whole 100% of the software "open sourced" (as in all other aspects of open-source code, without the ability to sell it), people not using it for profit can benefit immensely, and those who are using it for profit can license it like anything else. Ostracizing the latter because they don't adhere to strict definitions seems wrong, especially when pretty much all of the alternatives (aside from going full GPL/AGPL) means there is less code out there usable by people, and less users will have the ability to see the code they use.