4 ms·

Could someone say just take a normal open source license, like MIT, and just add a provision saying, if you are Amazon, Google, Microsoft, this license doesn't

Could someone say just take a normal open source license, like MIT, and just add a provision saying, if you are Amazon, Google, Microsoft, this license doesn't apply to you and you are not permitted to use the code in any way? Basically, just blacklist certain companies that compete with you directly.

amenod 7y ago
It's still not free/open/libre source anymore, because you are discriminating against someone, so it's not in-line with the set of freedoms as defined by both OSI and FSF. Whether this matters to you or not is another question, of course... :)
- didibus 7y ago
  Hum, I feel there's some ambiguity there. Like FSF says from here https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html: > A free program must offer the four freedoms to any user that obtains a copy of the software, provided the user has complied thus far with the conditions of the free license covering the software. It's unclear what "obtains a copy" means. You could make it that certain companies are not allowed to "obtain a copy", and thus if they do, it is through illegitimate means. For example, it goes to length to say Free software does not mean gratis. So I'd suspect it would claim that if software is sold, and you pirate the copy instead of paying for it, you have broken the conditions of the free license. But if you paid, and a copy is delivered to you, from that point on, the four set of freedoms are granted to you over the copy that was given. So, I can see something where, it is gratis, but obtaining the copy is not granted to everyone, but only to some, depending on if you're a potential competitor or not. And that seems like it could still fall under that definition of Free Software.
  - amenod 7y ago
    Sure - except that under their definition of freedoms you are allowed to share software with anyone, so while you can sell it to the first person, they can freely share it with anyone. But truly, I don't think looking for holes in definition of freedom would help anyone. The question if, do these definitions achieve what we have set out to do, and in what way? If yes, great. If not, maybe the time has come to define another set of freedoms, which still protect users better than closed source, but allow developers and maintainers to make money from their creations. And yes, they will not be open source, so we might as well come up with a different term.
will4274 7y ago
The whole point of open source is that anybody can read, modify, and run the code. If you remove "anybody", it's just another proprietary license.
- didibus 7y ago
  But the other option is that the license is made more restrictive for everybody. So at least that way, it is still open source for me, and a lot of other people, but not for direct mega competitor with too much leverage. I know, it's a choice of two evils, and I don't know what's best.
slavik81 7y ago
A blacklist would not be very effective. The companies you list could contract out the running of the database to someone who isn't blacklisted, or even just another company that they own.
paxys 7y ago
Yes, but it would be a stupid thing to do because you have cut off a major chunk of contributors to your project, especially if they were interested in using it in the first place.

amenod 7y ago

It's still not free/open/libre source anymore, because you are discriminating against someone, so it's not in-line with the set of freedoms as defined by both OSI and FSF. Whether this matters to you or not is another question, of course... :)

didibus 7y ago
Hum, I feel there's some ambiguity there. Like FSF says from here https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html: > A free program must offer the four freedoms to any user that obtains a copy of the software, provided the user has complied thus far with the conditions of the free license covering the software. It's unclear what "obtains a copy" means. You could make it that certain companies are not allowed to "obtain a copy", and thus if they do, it is through illegitimate means. For example, it goes to length to say Free software does not mean gratis. So I'd suspect it would claim that if software is sold, and you pirate the copy instead of paying for it, you have broken the conditions of the free license. But if you paid, and a copy is delivered to you, from that point on, the four set of freedoms are granted to you over the copy that was given. So, I can see something where, it is gratis, but obtaining the copy is not granted to everyone, but only to some, depending on if you're a potential competitor or not. And that seems like it could still fall under that definition of Free Software.
- amenod 7y ago
  Sure - except that under their definition of freedoms you are allowed to share software with anyone, so while you can sell it to the first person, they can freely share it with anyone. But truly, I don't think looking for holes in definition of freedom would help anyone. The question if, do these definitions achieve what we have set out to do, and in what way? If yes, great. If not, maybe the time has come to define another set of freedoms, which still protect users better than closed source, but allow developers and maintainers to make money from their creations. And yes, they will not be open source, so we might as well come up with a different term.

will4274 7y ago

The whole point of open source is that anybody can read, modify, and run the code. If you remove "anybody", it's just another proprietary license.

didibus 7y ago
But the other option is that the license is made more restrictive for everybody. So at least that way, it is still open source for me, and a lot of other people, but not for direct mega competitor with too much leverage. I know, it's a choice of two evils, and I don't know what's best.

slavik81 7y ago

A blacklist would not be very effective. The companies you list could contract out the running of the database to someone who isn't blacklisted, or even just another company that they own.

paxys 7y ago

Yes, but it would be a stupid thing to do because you have cut off a major chunk of contributors to your project, especially if they were interested in using it in the first place.