6 ms·

The Fair Code site doesn't really explain how it works, but the Commons Clause site[1] has an FAQ. I agree about the problem: it's hard to run a business suppo

by ben509 6y ago

The Fair Code site doesn't really explain how it works, but the Commons Clause site[1] has an FAQ. I agree about the problem: it's hard to run a business supporting a project if a competitor can come along and resell their code without any compensation. The commons clause says a company can't sell "a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software." I like the idea that a company could create a plugin that works with existing open source software and then sell that. I like the idea of creating a framework that lots of people can add plugins for, because I could make my living offering a few handy plugins for it and I don't have a problem if others are also making a living selling their own plugins. In principle, it makes a lot of sense. I'm not clear if it's kosher for me to write product X that's using a lot of Apache licensed software, but to which I've added the Commons Clause. And it generally seems problematic... Suppose a company sinks a decent amount of effort into some widgets they add to a commons clause licensed software, but only 10% of customers really use the widgets. Are they in violation of the license? [1]: https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/ [2]: https://fosspost.org/fair-code-open-source/ https://fosspost.org/fair-code-open-source/

hnarn 6y ago
My opinion has always been that restrictions on commercial usage is not "open source" for the simple reason that "commercial" is so hard to define. I always sigh when I see the Creative Commons "NonCommercial" license, I understand where the concern comes from, but in my mind you either embrace the fact that you're releasing something, or you simply don't. This description of the commons clause really irks me: > if you just change the software name or few parts in the code, then you are not allowed to commercially use it without contacting the authors. However, if you modify it to a larger extent, then you are allowed to commercially use it without contacting the original developers. Relative terms like "larger extent" scares away lawyers, and even anyone remotely used to legalese. You don't want more uncertainties and subjective classification than necessary when you're talking about something this important. What then happens is: many of the projects are not picked up by competitors or corporations, they're not improved, and they die out, just like a completely closed source, proprietary project would have. Open source is a way to boost the collaboration and success chance of your project. I think you either go with it, or you don't. I don't see that this solves any problems in such a way that it's worth it.

by ben509 6y ago

hnarn 6y ago

My opinion has always been that restrictions on commercial usage is not "open source" for the simple reason that "commercial" is so hard to define. I always sigh when I see the Creative Commons "NonCommercial" license, I understand where the concern comes from, but in my mind you either embrace the fact that you're releasing something, or you simply don't. This description of the commons clause really irks me: > if you just change the software name or few parts in the code, then you are not allowed to commercially use it without contacting the authors. However, if you modify it to a larger extent, then you are allowed to commercially use it without contacting the original developers. Relative terms like "larger extent" scares away lawyers, and even anyone remotely used to legalese. You don't want more uncertainties and subjective classification than necessary when you're talking about something this important. What then happens is: many of the projects are not picked up by competitors or corporations, they're not improved, and they die out, just like a completely closed source, proprietary project would have. Open source is a way to boost the collaboration and success chance of your project. I think you either go with it, or you don't. I don't see that this solves any problems in such a way that it's worth it.