4 ms·

Its probably time for the next generation of open source licensing to make the code not usable for profit making purposes, thus ensuring open source is either f

Its probably time for the next generation of open source licensing to make the code not usable for profit making purposes, thus ensuring open source is either funded by the companies that use it or forms its own separate community away from corporations.

unbanned 5y ago
I just wouldn't use it then. Or I'd use it and just not tell anyone. Or take its essence and build it from ground up with a different name. Who's gonna sue me?
js8 5y ago
Why when you already have GPL? Most companies do not allow GPL software to be used for products.
- goalieca 5y ago
  It becomes murky when you don’t actually ship software and use it as a service in the backend. GPL is from the olden days when you actually distributed your software. Now it’s only the front end and that ships as source still because wasm and the rest haven’t taken over yet.
  - inops 5y ago
    AGPL then. It extends the meaning of "distribute", but is still FSF/OSI-approved
    - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
      AGPL is super scary for corporations, as it's not clear where the boundaries are and no one wants to go to court to find out. GPL is relatively straight forward: as long as you don't link to it, make sources including any changes available to your users. AGPL is like, okay maybe everything needs to be released. And when you are also using proprietary third party software it becomes a real hairy mess.
BarryMilo 5y ago
They exist, they're just not used a lot. I assume this is because most apps are made for profit.
nixpulvis 5y ago
How do you practically inforce these licenses? At aquision time in a big code audit? Independent review with mandatory certificates for businesses over a certain gross profit? What are the current ways we catch lisence breach? So many questions... I know that I hate, HATE, thinking about lisences, to the point I typically don't include one, or use some nebulous beer-ware hack. How does a new set of licenses help me?
- jt2190 5y ago
  > I typically don't include [a license]… This would be UNLICENSED or NONE then. Unlicensed software can’t be used for too many things, since it’s encumbered by copyright restrictions. (The author’s right to create copies is, in the U.S. at least, implicit, meaning that the simple act of creating a work is enough to have the “copyright” for it.) There is The Unlicense [1] that explicitly transfers copyright to the Public Domain. [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/Unlicense.html https://spdx.org/licenses/Unlicense.html
  - nixpulvis 5y ago
    What about the whole concept of Copyleft? Which is something that seemed interesting to me but I never really understood the full implications of.
    - jt2190 5y ago
      With “Copyleft” licenses the license terms automatically apply to derivative works. So if you fix a bug in some GPL licensed code, that bug fix is also licensed under the GPL terms. The “deal” is essentially “everyone benefits from everyone’s work.” The difficult part is enforcement: How can we even know if a user has made a modification? The older licenses assume that a user can’t really get more than personal benefit from a modification unless they “distribute” a copy of the modified software to someone else. Clearly the recipient of a copy of commercial software can look and see if any Copyleft code was included. With the rise of software-as-a-service, however, the modified copy never leaves the user’s computers. This seems like it violates the spirit of “everyone benefits from everyone’s work”. This is one of the issues new Open Source licenses are trying to address.
jollybean 5y ago
GPL will for the most part only mean nobody will use it. There are only very few cases in which GPL is ideal.
- rightbyte 5y ago
  What? Linux, gcc?
  - jollybean 5y ago
    VideoLan in that category as well. I think GPL with it's focus on 'can't be used in commercial' is deeply limiting. I think the 'You have to make public variations of this module but it can be used for anything and linked to closed source statically or dynamically' ... is more ideal for those kinds of things, which is kind of pragmatically the case. But still. It would also be nice if courts could make rulings on verbiage or licences instead of waiting for trials because that legal cloud is a big overhang for the entire world.
madeofpalk 5y ago
GPL, AGPL, etc.
candiddevmike 5y ago
See Commons Clause or Business Source License for an example. But then it's source available, not "FOSS".
echelon 5y ago
The license should require the entire system to be open source, with exceptions for secrets and small integration pieces under 1000 LOC. If AWS wants to use it, the entirety of their platform would have to be open. Billing system, machine provisioning, networking, database failover -- everything. They won't do it. But someone with ambition will, and they'll start to grow a platform that is less risky and increasingly more attractive. As it gains steam, it could become not only a refuge from cloud lock in, but a huge threat to existing players.
NavinF 5y ago
All open source licenses allow commercial use. That’s a major part of the definition of “open source”: https://opensource.org/faq#commercial https://opensource.org/faq#commercial “Source available” licenses that don’t allow profit do exist. See all the anti-cloud licenses that came out when AWS started selling open source databases as a service. It’s just that hardly anyone touches code licensed like that. Hell, even Linux used to have a “can’t have money change hands” clause until Linus realized that was stupid. See his debconf talk where he talks about it.

unbanned 5y ago

I just wouldn't use it then. Or I'd use it and just not tell anyone. Or take its essence and build it from ground up with a different name. Who's gonna sue me?

js8 5y ago

Why when you already have GPL? Most companies do not allow GPL software to be used for products.

goalieca 5y ago
It becomes murky when you don’t actually ship software and use it as a service in the backend. GPL is from the olden days when you actually distributed your software. Now it’s only the front end and that ships as source still because wasm and the rest haven’t taken over yet.
- inops 5y ago
  AGPL then. It extends the meaning of "distribute", but is still FSF/OSI-approved
  - xyzzy_plugh 5y ago
    AGPL is super scary for corporations, as it's not clear where the boundaries are and no one wants to go to court to find out. GPL is relatively straight forward: as long as you don't link to it, make sources including any changes available to your users. AGPL is like, okay maybe everything needs to be released. And when you are also using proprietary third party software it becomes a real hairy mess.

BarryMilo 5y ago

They exist, they're just not used a lot. I assume this is because most apps are made for profit.

nixpulvis 5y ago

How do you practically inforce these licenses? At aquision time in a big code audit? Independent review with mandatory certificates for businesses over a certain gross profit? What are the current ways we catch lisence breach? So many questions... I know that I hate, HATE, thinking about lisences, to the point I typically don't include one, or use some nebulous beer-ware hack. How does a new set of licenses help me?

jt2190 5y ago
> I typically don't include [a license]… This would be UNLICENSED or NONE then. Unlicensed software can’t be used for too many things, since it’s encumbered by copyright restrictions. (The author’s right to create copies is, in the U.S. at least, implicit, meaning that the simple act of creating a work is enough to have the “copyright” for it.) There is The Unlicense [1] that explicitly transfers copyright to the Public Domain. [1] https://spdx.org/licenses/Unlicense.html https://spdx.org/licenses/Unlicense.html
- nixpulvis 5y ago
  What about the whole concept of Copyleft? Which is something that seemed interesting to me but I never really understood the full implications of.
  - jt2190 5y ago
    With “Copyleft” licenses the license terms automatically apply to derivative works. So if you fix a bug in some GPL licensed code, that bug fix is also licensed under the GPL terms. The “deal” is essentially “everyone benefits from everyone’s work.” The difficult part is enforcement: How can we even know if a user has made a modification? The older licenses assume that a user can’t really get more than personal benefit from a modification unless they “distribute” a copy of the modified software to someone else. Clearly the recipient of a copy of commercial software can look and see if any Copyleft code was included. With the rise of software-as-a-service, however, the modified copy never leaves the user’s computers. This seems like it violates the spirit of “everyone benefits from everyone’s work”. This is one of the issues new Open Source licenses are trying to address.

jollybean 5y ago

GPL will for the most part only mean nobody will use it. There are only very few cases in which GPL is ideal.

rightbyte 5y ago
What? Linux, gcc?
- jollybean 5y ago
  VideoLan in that category as well. I think GPL with it's focus on 'can't be used in commercial' is deeply limiting. I think the 'You have to make public variations of this module but it can be used for anything and linked to closed source statically or dynamically' ... is more ideal for those kinds of things, which is kind of pragmatically the case. But still. It would also be nice if courts could make rulings on verbiage or licences instead of waiting for trials because that legal cloud is a big overhang for the entire world.

madeofpalk 5y ago

GPL, AGPL, etc.

candiddevmike 5y ago

See Commons Clause or Business Source License for an example. But then it's source available, not "FOSS".

echelon 5y ago

The license should require the entire system to be open source, with exceptions for secrets and small integration pieces under 1000 LOC. If AWS wants to use it, the entirety of their platform would have to be open. Billing system, machine provisioning, networking, database failover -- everything. They won't do it. But someone with ambition will, and they'll start to grow a platform that is less risky and increasingly more attractive. As it gains steam, it could become not only a refuge from cloud lock in, but a huge threat to existing players.

NavinF 5y ago

All open source licenses allow commercial use. That’s a major part of the definition of “open source”: https://opensource.org/faq#commercial https://opensource.org/faq#commercial “Source available” licenses that don’t allow profit do exist. See all the anti-cloud licenses that came out when AWS started selling open source databases as a service. It’s just that hardly anyone touches code licensed like that. Hell, even Linux used to have a “can’t have money change hands” clause until Linus realized that was stupid. See his debconf talk where he talks about it.