7 ms·

Except there’s a big difference in people that go to food banks, and giant corporations that benefit from open source

by peterbraden 7y ago

cthor 7y ago
That's why we have GPL.
- ChristianBundy 7y ago
  Does the GPL do enough to protect us from private extraction of the commons? I used to advocate for 0BSD but at this point it seems like we need something like the AGPL or Parity.[0] [0]: https://licensezero.com/licenses/parity https://licensezero.com/licenses/parity
  - cthor 7y ago
    AGPL closes the SAAS loophole. Outside of that, what "private extraction of the commons" is left to cover? Parity license looks like a super aggressive and untested version of AGPL. I can't see what benefit using it over AGPL would be. Prosperity license is at odds with the point of free software and almost certainly untenable.
    - zzzcpan 7y ago
      > AGPL closes the SAAS loophole. It doesn't.
      - cthor 7y ago
        Can you clarify? That's like the whole point of the AGPL. It not doing that would be quite surprising.
        kemitchell 7y ago
        I blogged about this here: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up.html#bounty https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up.h... If you're interested in network-copyleft more generally, make sure you compare AGPL to OSL: https://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0
  - zzzcpan 7y ago
    For a lot of server-side software AGPL is not enough either, should be API Copyleft License [1] instead. [1] https://apicopyleft.com/ https://apicopyleft.com/
    - kemitchell 7y ago
      I'm one of the contributors to the API Copyleft License. Are you using it for a public project? I'd like to feature that kind of work on https://apicopyleft.com https://apicopyleft.com.
      - johnisgood 7y ago
        > but requires you to contribute source code for changes, additions, and software that you build with it, other than applications. What does this part mean? Would you please dumb it down for me, perhaps with an example?
        kemitchell 7y ago
        Keep reading! That is just the Purpose section, which summarizes the license. The specific sections affecting copyleft are Copyleft, Prototypes, Applications, and Contributing. I think they are slightly easier to read and understanding on the master branch of the development repository: https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license/blob/master/license.md#copyleft https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license/blob/mast...
        johnisgood 7y ago
        > The purpose of this rule is to encourage cooperative development of this software, minimizing duplication of effort across competing substitutes. Ah, I understand it now! Thank you.
  - freemint 7y ago
    That is interesting. I used to like AGPL but recently switch to advocating 0BSD. What made you switch away from 0BSD?
    - ChristianBundy 7y ago
      My gripe with copyleft was that it used copyright, which I wanted to avoid participating in. Unfortunately, this means that you're making it very easy for others to take your work, obfuscate it, and receive copyright protection for their "derivative". My goal was to remove copyright from my work, but using permissive licenses seemed to instead mean "I'll give up my copyright protection, but you can take my work and receive copyright protection and sue others".
neura 7y ago
Do not the small developers benefit from open source? Startups that are not making money, even? Personal projects, etc. The difference between the food bank and this is that food cannot be consumed by everybody, all at once. It's near impossible to make "free" software that cannot be used by companies that are profitable. Who would police "profitability" when there's no money involved? The best you can hope for is to prevent a profitable company from using your code. Chances are, if the code is useful enough, someone else will write something similar without the same restriction. My take: If you're writing FOSS, you know what you're getting into. If you need the money to do it, you should plan for that.

Except there’s a big difference in people that go to food banks, and giant corporations that benefit from open source

cthor 7y ago

That's why we have GPL.

ChristianBundy 7y ago
Does the GPL do enough to protect us from private extraction of the commons? I used to advocate for 0BSD but at this point it seems like we need something like the AGPL or Parity.[0] [0]: https://licensezero.com/licenses/parity https://licensezero.com/licenses/parity
- cthor 7y ago
  AGPL closes the SAAS loophole. Outside of that, what "private extraction of the commons" is left to cover? Parity license looks like a super aggressive and untested version of AGPL. I can't see what benefit using it over AGPL would be. Prosperity license is at odds with the point of free software and almost certainly untenable.
  - zzzcpan 7y ago
    > AGPL closes the SAAS loophole. It doesn't.
    - cthor 7y ago
      Can you clarify? That's like the whole point of the AGPL. It not doing that would be quite surprising.
      - kemitchell 7y ago
        I blogged about this here: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up.html#bounty https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up.h... If you're interested in network-copyleft more generally, make sure you compare AGPL to OSL: https://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0 https://opensource.org/licenses/OSL-3.0
- zzzcpan 7y ago
  For a lot of server-side software AGPL is not enough either, should be API Copyleft License [1] instead. [1] https://apicopyleft.com/ https://apicopyleft.com/
  - kemitchell 7y ago
    I'm one of the contributors to the API Copyleft License. Are you using it for a public project? I'd like to feature that kind of work on https://apicopyleft.com https://apicopyleft.com.
    - johnisgood 7y ago
      > but requires you to contribute source code for changes, additions, and software that you build with it, other than applications. What does this part mean? Would you please dumb it down for me, perhaps with an example?
      - kemitchell 7y ago
        Keep reading! That is just the Purpose section, which summarizes the license. The specific sections affecting copyleft are Copyleft, Prototypes, Applications, and Contributing. I think they are slightly easier to read and understanding on the master branch of the development repository: https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license/blob/master/license.md#copyleft https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license/blob/mast...
        johnisgood 7y ago
        > The purpose of this rule is to encourage cooperative development of this software, minimizing duplication of effort across competing substitutes. Ah, I understand it now! Thank you.
- freemint 7y ago
  That is interesting. I used to like AGPL but recently switch to advocating 0BSD. What made you switch away from 0BSD?
  - ChristianBundy 7y ago
    My gripe with copyleft was that it used copyright, which I wanted to avoid participating in. Unfortunately, this means that you're making it very easy for others to take your work, obfuscate it, and receive copyright protection for their "derivative". My goal was to remove copyright from my work, but using permissive licenses seemed to instead mean "I'll give up my copyright protection, but you can take my work and receive copyright protection and sue others".

neura 7y ago

Do not the small developers benefit from open source? Startups that are not making money, even? Personal projects, etc. The difference between the food bank and this is that food cannot be consumed by everybody, all at once. It's near impossible to make "free" software that cannot be used by companies that are profitable. Who would police "profitability" when there's no money involved? The best you can hope for is to prevent a profitable company from using your code. Chances are, if the code is useful enough, someone else will write something similar without the same restriction. My take: If you're writing FOSS, you know what you're getting into. If you need the money to do it, you should plan for that.