3 ms·
I don't value OSI's stamp of approval since they were explicitly founded to coopt FSF's effort and make it more corporate friendly. Obviously corporate lawyers
by bosswipe 5y ago
I don't value OSI's stamp of approval since they were explicitly founded to coopt FSF's effort and make it more corporate friendly. Obviously corporate lawyers would disagree with me.
A license that allows all typical freedoms except "use the software to start a SaaS using proprietary infrastructure" is fine by me.
- ufo 5y agoWhile there are significant ideological disagreements between the OSI and FSF, when it comes to FOSS licenses their definitions are mostly equivalent. There are very few licenses that are recognized by the OSI but not by the FSF, and vice-versa.
- klelatti 5y agoProprietary infrastructure = All infrastructure essentially. So you're fine with a license that can't be used for SaaS. So basically you're happy for the commercial internet to be powered by proprietary software - with all that would mean for free software.
- bosswipe 5y agoThat's pretty much the same as AGPL. A tell about OSI's biases is that AGPL and SSPL are basically the same but since Amazon's propaganda engine ramped up against SSPL it was labeled as somehow completely out of bounds.
- josephcsible 5y ago> AGPL and SSPL are basically the same Are you serious? Once you look past the most superficial level, they're not even close.
- SXX 5y agoHow are they pretty much the same? AGPL only require the changes to the software itself to be shared under AGPL and it's apply the same requirement for everyone. SSPL require to release source code for every piece of your infrastructure if your business model seems like Amazon. This is descrimination which both FSF and OSI are not allow.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]