3 ms·
> they don't have any intention to develop this software without a profit, then they shouldn't have positioned themselves as a free-and-open-source product in t
by andlarry 6y ago
> they don't have any intention to develop this software without a profit, then they shouldn't have positioned themselves as a free-and-open-source product in the first place.
If something satisfies the four freedoms [0], it is free software.
[0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en
- shawnz 6y agoHow does SSPL satisfy GNU's "freedom 0", to run the program for any purpose?
- zaarn 6y agoIn the same way the AGPL satisfies it, you can run it for any purpose if you provide the source code to users.
- shawnz 6y agoWell, the linked page indicated that copyleft is something that applies only to distribution and not use, but I guess the AGPL shows that that's not true. Nonetheless I don't agree with the GNU's claim that copyleft doesn't reduce freedoms. Of course a permissive license provides more freedoms: it's right there in the name But this issue isn't really about permissive vs copyleft licensing anyway: Had Apache used a copyleft license with Lucene, Elasticsearch would have never existed.
- zaarn 6y agoBut Amazon is hardly offering Lucene as a SaaS offering, don't they?
- shawnz 6y agoIf they did, should that mean Elasticsearch can't?
- zaarn 6y agoI don't see the point there. Lucene is a library, you can hardly offer it as SaaS. It's gluework. On the other hand, Elastic is much more enduser software, which is much more routinely abused for SaaS hosting by larger corporations.