3 ms·
This might be a good thing then. This has become a pet peeve of mine. At the last FOSDEM there was a talk on "open source under attack" claiming that anything
by api 7y ago
This might be a good thing then. This has become a pet peeve of mine.
At the last FOSDEM there was a talk on "open source under attack" claiming that anything other than permissive licensing represents an attack on open source:
https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/osi/ https://fosdem.org/2020/schedule/event/osi/
Two of the three presenters were lawyers for Google and Facebook, two giant surveillance companies with absolutely closed SaaS silo ecosystems. Evidently the "spirit of open source" is free labor for surveillance capitalism and pop-up SaaS products that monetize open source with paywalled APIs and give nothing back.
FOSDEM != OSI, but there's a common DNA here.
- ofrzeta 7y ago".. parties who seek to limit the promise of free software" that's an interesting phrase as Free Software has always also been about limiting freedom. After all a license is something that puts certain restrictions on the usage of a piece of software. This is not much different to accusing the GPL of "limiting the promise of free software". Or the AGPL for that matter, which is probably what the OSI proponents are thinking anyway.
- api 7y agoThe MongoDB license they are picking on barely differs from the AGPL.
- zozbot234 7y agoThis doesn't seem to be accurate, especially as far as OSI and OSD is concerned. Say what you want about the AGPL, but the license does not discriminate against any field of endeavour - it does not state "you can't use this software to offer a network-based endpoint" or anything like that. It just triggers a source distribution requirement in case of such use, by analogy with distributing the software itself to the public (an analogy which is in fact supported by copyright law itself, viz. "public performance" of a copyrighted work). The MongoDB approach post-relicensing is very different.