3 ms·

I don't think even AGPL software is safe from the SaaS menace; the tooling around AGPL software can simply refrain from actually linking to it, ie, generate con

by zaarn 8y ago

I don't think even AGPL software is safe from the SaaS menace; the tooling around AGPL software can simply refrain from actually linking to it, ie, generate configs and manage the software service doesn't trigger the AGPL, so you never see the code. I think MongoDB has had trouble with that despite AGPL license, which is why they did the entire SSPL thing. If all that developers see happening to their free software project is that SaaS corps take it and squeeze it for money without giving back a single cent, people won't license as free software anymore. Atleast with open source licenses the expectation of that abuse is always somewhat present but people will similarly stop using it if the abuse is too great.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> If all that developers see happening to their free software project is that SaaS corps take it and squeeze it for money without giving back a single cent, people won't license as free software anymore. > At least with open source licenses the expectation of that abuse is always somewhat present but people will similarly stop using it if the abuse is too great. You talk about “free software” licenses and “open source licenses” as if they are different things. While the FSF and OSI are different organizations with somewhat different philosophy and strategy, the set of “Free Software” licenses recognized by the former is virtually identical to the set of “Open Source” licenses recognized by the latter.
- mcguire 8y ago
  A good bit of the original article is about the difference.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    The article is about the difference in philosophy and strategy between the communities. Which I noted in my comment. But the set of licenses is essentially identical, the differences being in licenses where only one of the two groups has rendered an opinion, which arguably isn't even a difference other than in degree of certainty.
- zaarn 8y ago
  While both recognize most of the same licenses, "open source" licenses are licenses like APL, MPL, MIT, BSD and friends, licenses which give maximum freedoms, while "free software" licenses like GPL, EUPL and AGPL attempt to maximize user freedoms. There is a difference between those two and there are definitely communities that prefer one over the other. I find it silly to yell "but they recognize the same licenses" when that isn't what it's about at all...
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    There are existing, established terms—used consistently by both the Open Source and Free Software communities—for those different kinds of licenses, and the terms are “permissive” for what you call “open source” and “copyleft” for what you call “free software”. Under your terminology, the GNU All Permissive License, despite clearly originating in the Free Software community, would be an ”open source” rather than “free software” license. > There is a difference between those two and there are definitely communities that prefer one over the other. The FSF, by the actual recommendations it states on its list of licenses, explicitly prefers copyleft licenses for large programs, but considers permissive licenses fine for smaller programs and supporting files (and has specific recommendations as to which permissive licenses should be used.) The OSI is less prone to state preferences, and it'd be a misnomer to conflate the open source community with people who unconditionally prefer permissive licenses.

by zaarn 8y ago

dragonwriter 8y ago

> If all that developers see happening to their free software project is that SaaS corps take it and squeeze it for money without giving back a single cent, people won't license as free software anymore. > At least with open source licenses the expectation of that abuse is always somewhat present but people will similarly stop using it if the abuse is too great. You talk about “free software” licenses and “open source licenses” as if they are different things. While the FSF and OSI are different organizations with somewhat different philosophy and strategy, the set of “Free Software” licenses recognized by the former is virtually identical to the set of “Open Source” licenses recognized by the latter.

mcguire 8y ago
A good bit of the original article is about the difference.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  The article is about the difference in philosophy and strategy between the communities. Which I noted in my comment. But the set of licenses is essentially identical, the differences being in licenses where only one of the two groups has rendered an opinion, which arguably isn't even a difference other than in degree of certainty.
zaarn 8y ago
While both recognize most of the same licenses, "open source" licenses are licenses like APL, MPL, MIT, BSD and friends, licenses which give maximum freedoms, while "free software" licenses like GPL, EUPL and AGPL attempt to maximize user freedoms. There is a difference between those two and there are definitely communities that prefer one over the other. I find it silly to yell "but they recognize the same licenses" when that isn't what it's about at all...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  There are existing, established terms—used consistently by both the Open Source and Free Software communities—for those different kinds of licenses, and the terms are “permissive” for what you call “open source” and “copyleft” for what you call “free software”. Under your terminology, the GNU All Permissive License, despite clearly originating in the Free Software community, would be an ”open source” rather than “free software” license. > There is a difference between those two and there are definitely communities that prefer one over the other. The FSF, by the actual recommendations it states on its list of licenses, explicitly prefers copyleft licenses for large programs, but considers permissive licenses fine for smaller programs and supporting files (and has specific recommendations as to which permissive licenses should be used.) The OSI is less prone to state preferences, and it'd be a misnomer to conflate the open source community with people who unconditionally prefer permissive licenses.