6 ms·

Article is good on clarity, but a little light on solutions for the "service-wrapping" problem. Maybe that was outside of the article's scope. But it does seem

Article is good on clarity, but a little light on solutions for the "service-wrapping" problem. Maybe that was outside of the article's scope. But it does seem like a problem we have yet to solve. Many have tried, but the ones that attempt to switch their license to stop Amazon from eating their lunch then see their popularity plummet and the major distros kick the software out of their repos. It's a big gamble, and I imagine most product developers don't wish to alienate the FOSS community unless they feel their survival is at stake, so perhaps this is where the FOSS community needs to step in and provide better guidance.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Unfortunately the problem is simple: - It's only considered an open source license by the wider FOSS community if it's approved by the OSI. - The OSI doesn't feel it's their job to enable open source companies to survive, and has refused to vet any licenses that prevent service-wrapping. (SSPL is a solid option, or something like it, it's basically an aggressive copyleft.) As such, as long as the OSI is viewed as the definitive word on what is and isn't open source, and the OSI refuses to act, the problem will remain. I am confused at the OSI's behavior here, as it leads to only two outcomes: Open source dies as a viable business leading to nobody caring about the OSI, or people move on from entrusting the OSI to rule on open source. They literally have an extinction-level event on their hands and have decided it just isn't a big deal to them.
runningmike 6y ago
Problem is imho easy to solve...do not use a FOSS approved license if you do not like freedom. Use a commercial license and dump the source. By the way agpl and gpl is a good way to make sure everyone has the same freedom rights.....
zozbot234 6y ago
The Affero GPL is a FLOSS, OSI-certified license that by-and-large solves the "software as a service" problem, by making sure that if SaaS providers publically perform a version of the software over a computer network, they also have to make that version available under the license. This is quite consistent with the general norms of FLOSS development and does not actively introduce discrimination over private use of the software, as other licenses do.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

Unfortunately the problem is simple: - It's only considered an open source license by the wider FOSS community if it's approved by the OSI. - The OSI doesn't feel it's their job to enable open source companies to survive, and has refused to vet any licenses that prevent service-wrapping. (SSPL is a solid option, or something like it, it's basically an aggressive copyleft.) As such, as long as the OSI is viewed as the definitive word on what is and isn't open source, and the OSI refuses to act, the problem will remain. I am confused at the OSI's behavior here, as it leads to only two outcomes: Open source dies as a viable business leading to nobody caring about the OSI, or people move on from entrusting the OSI to rule on open source. They literally have an extinction-level event on their hands and have decided it just isn't a big deal to them.

runningmike 6y ago

Problem is imho easy to solve...do not use a FOSS approved license if you do not like freedom. Use a commercial license and dump the source. By the way agpl and gpl is a good way to make sure everyone has the same freedom rights.....

zozbot234 6y ago

The Affero GPL is a FLOSS, OSI-certified license that by-and-large solves the "software as a service" problem, by making sure that if SaaS providers publically perform a version of the software over a computer network, they also have to make that version available under the license. This is quite consistent with the general norms of FLOSS development and does not actively introduce discrimination over private use of the software, as other licenses do.