4 ms·

How can we fix that?

rapsey 7y ago
You want to fix human nature? Good luck.
tannhaeuser 7y ago
By giving it away for free only for personal rather than commercial use, as lots of software used to be in the last millenium? But of course what's going to happen is a certain F/OSS advocacy org will shout "this isn't F/OSS as it doesn't obey our no-purpose-limitation criterion" and you and your software will be treated as a pariah and avoided like the plague and even more than pure closed-source software.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Define "commercial use". It's not a clear bright line.
  - tannhaeuser 7y ago
    When you're doing it for money. It's not difficult at all IMHO. Note that the new-fangled, earlier discussed licenses mongodb and others are using are targetting the case where your business is hosting sw for your customers (like cloud providers do); commercial use is ok when you self-host the software.
- jarfil 7y ago
  That's why there are "non-free" repos. Not much of a problem, really.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Fine, so you write a bunch of code, and release it under an NC license and a paid commercial license, no problem. Then someone comes along and submits a PR. What now? Will you accept their code and monetize it, despite the fact that you still deny that person the right to monetize your code, or will you refuse all PRs? The problem with these proposals is that it creates an unequal relationship; some developers have more rights just because they started the project, even if others have contributed significantly.
  - jarfil 7y ago
    More likely it discourages others from contributing significantly. The PRs requiring copyright assignment end up being minor fixes, and anyone willing to develop a bigger functionality will just start their own project.
  - dspillett 7y ago
    I have a few things that I plan to release at some point. Small stuff, commercial use probably isn't a big issue, and I have no real plans for monetisation as this is hobby/interest stuff not the day job. My intent is to go for full-on AGPLv3 and not accept PRs initially. If someone sees a bug they can tell me "if these options are picked there is an infinite loop" or "you've missed input sanitisation here" and I'll put together a fix for it. That way all the code is mine, I have full control, and I don't have to worry about treading on someone else's toes if I relicense later. When/if I later decide upon a more permissive license, or to try monetise through commercial licensing, or if I chose another route entirely, then changing will be frictionless. In the meantime anyone wanting to work on it themselves because I'm too slow, they don't want to work my way, or "just because", are free to fork (assuming they are happy with AGPL), or contact me to negotiate other terms, or write something themselves from scratch to deal with the itch (again: these are not Big Things, I certainly don't expect to be releasing the NextBigThing™).
- ghaff 7y ago
  Leave aside the ideology of restricted use in open source. What's commercial use? Creative Commons has been messing around with this question for something like decade and has never come to a resolution. So, sure, advocate for changes to the open source definition if you like. But there are reasons that a lot of people are resistant.
  - tannhaeuser 7y ago
    Idk what is so difficult about defining "commercial use". It is a concept even a child can understand. I acknowledge the goals others have for their licensing choices, and hold RMS in high esteem for his principled stance and achievements; I even release software under LGPL and other licenses. But I don't think OSI have an answer for the new software crisis where F/OSS developers are doing all the work, just to line the pockets of the three big cloud providers which obviously isn't sustainable. It also isn't in line with the ethics of eg the FSF to lock customers in to a walled garden built by F/OSS. In this sense, it's not me who brings up ideological arguments, but OSI who insist and hold-up their Open Source definition whenever someones dares to make a living with his/her work.
    - ghaff 7y ago
      It was, in fact, so difficult to define "commercial use" 10 years ago and nothing has changed, e.g. https://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/defining-non-commercial-and-trouble-creative-commons https://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/defining-non-commer... You can always release your software under the AGPL (which is an OSI-approved license)--which would effectively prohibit its use by cloud providers. Probably very few others will use it either but that's the tradeoff you make.
      - tannhaeuser 7y ago
        Careful with AGPL. It has yet to stand in court, and is actually the license mongodb has left behind in favour of their own SSPL because it turned out not strong enough, and not preventing eg. AWS to sell mongodb as a sevice without releasing any of their provisioning and monitoring sw (though I'm not sure AWS actually uses mongo or, like Azure with CosmosDB, a proprietary API-compatible product instead). The amount of confusion regarding AGPL shows in eg. [1], and I've also heard the opinion it might not be enforcable because it wants to restrict third-party software. IANAL, but I wouldn't rely on AGPL, and not many people would use AGPL software anyway. [1]: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/107883/agpl-what-you-can-do-and-what-you-cant https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1078...

You want to fix human nature? Good luck.

By giving it away for free only for personal rather than commercial use, as lots of software used to be in the last millenium? But of course what's going to happen is a certain F/OSS advocacy org will shout "this isn't F/OSS as it doesn't obey our no-purpose-limitation criterion" and you and your software will be treated as a pariah and avoided like the plague and even more than pure closed-source software.

pjc50 7y ago
Define "commercial use". It's not a clear bright line.
- tannhaeuser 7y ago
  When you're doing it for money. It's not difficult at all IMHO. Note that the new-fangled, earlier discussed licenses mongodb and others are using are targetting the case where your business is hosting sw for your customers (like cloud providers do); commercial use is ok when you self-host the software.
jarfil 7y ago
That's why there are "non-free" repos. Not much of a problem, really.
icebraining 7y ago
Fine, so you write a bunch of code, and release it under an NC license and a paid commercial license, no problem. Then someone comes along and submits a PR. What now? Will you accept their code and monetize it, despite the fact that you still deny that person the right to monetize your code, or will you refuse all PRs? The problem with these proposals is that it creates an unequal relationship; some developers have more rights just because they started the project, even if others have contributed significantly.
- jarfil 7y ago
  More likely it discourages others from contributing significantly. The PRs requiring copyright assignment end up being minor fixes, and anyone willing to develop a bigger functionality will just start their own project.
- dspillett 7y ago
  I have a few things that I plan to release at some point. Small stuff, commercial use probably isn't a big issue, and I have no real plans for monetisation as this is hobby/interest stuff not the day job. My intent is to go for full-on AGPLv3 and not accept PRs initially. If someone sees a bug they can tell me "if these options are picked there is an infinite loop" or "you've missed input sanitisation here" and I'll put together a fix for it. That way all the code is mine, I have full control, and I don't have to worry about treading on someone else's toes if I relicense later. When/if I later decide upon a more permissive license, or to try monetise through commercial licensing, or if I chose another route entirely, then changing will be frictionless. In the meantime anyone wanting to work on it themselves because I'm too slow, they don't want to work my way, or "just because", are free to fork (assuming they are happy with AGPL), or contact me to negotiate other terms, or write something themselves from scratch to deal with the itch (again: these are not Big Things, I certainly don't expect to be releasing the NextBigThing™).
ghaff 7y ago
Leave aside the ideology of restricted use in open source. What's commercial use? Creative Commons has been messing around with this question for something like decade and has never come to a resolution. So, sure, advocate for changes to the open source definition if you like. But there are reasons that a lot of people are resistant.
- tannhaeuser 7y ago
  Idk what is so difficult about defining "commercial use". It is a concept even a child can understand. I acknowledge the goals others have for their licensing choices, and hold RMS in high esteem for his principled stance and achievements; I even release software under LGPL and other licenses. But I don't think OSI have an answer for the new software crisis where F/OSS developers are doing all the work, just to line the pockets of the three big cloud providers which obviously isn't sustainable. It also isn't in line with the ethics of eg the FSF to lock customers in to a walled garden built by F/OSS. In this sense, it's not me who brings up ideological arguments, but OSI who insist and hold-up their Open Source definition whenever someones dares to make a living with his/her work.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    It was, in fact, so difficult to define "commercial use" 10 years ago and nothing has changed, e.g. https://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/defining-non-commercial-and-trouble-creative-commons https://www.socialmediatoday.com/content/defining-non-commer... You can always release your software under the AGPL (which is an OSI-approved license)--which would effectively prohibit its use by cloud providers. Probably very few others will use it either but that's the tradeoff you make.
    - tannhaeuser 7y ago
      Careful with AGPL. It has yet to stand in court, and is actually the license mongodb has left behind in favour of their own SSPL because it turned out not strong enough, and not preventing eg. AWS to sell mongodb as a sevice without releasing any of their provisioning and monitoring sw (though I'm not sure AWS actually uses mongo or, like Azure with CosmosDB, a proprietary API-compatible product instead). The amount of confusion regarding AGPL shows in eg. [1], and I've also heard the opinion it might not be enforcable because it wants to restrict third-party software. IANAL, but I wouldn't rely on AGPL, and not many people would use AGPL software anyway. [1]: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/107883/agpl-what-you-can-do-and-what-you-cant https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/1078...