4 ms·

While I appreciate that you've released a new source-available license to the public, the OpenFare License as described in the README is not free or open source

While I appreciate that you've released a new source-available license to the public, the OpenFare License as described in the README is not free or open source. FOSS software can be sold, but if the software license requires the user to pay to continue using it, the software is not free because it does not unconditionally grant the user the freedom to run it: > The freedom to run the program as you wish means that you are not forbidden or stopped from making it run. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#run-the-program https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#run-the-progr... That restriction also means the software is no longer open source, since it discriminates against commercial users who do not pay: > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Source-available licenses are a middle ground between proprietary and FOSS licenses, and they certainly serve a purpose. But, they're not FOSS licenses unless they allow the user to use, modify, and redistribute the software without exception.

rndhouse 5y ago
I don't claim that this is a free or open source license. The OpenFare license is about monetizing software in the most convenient way possible. I agree with the open source definition as given here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- josephcsible 5y ago
  But if your license isn't open source, then what good is it for monetizing open source programs?
  - rndhouse 5y ago
    I think the entire point of the article is dual license FOSS and some other commercial license.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Of the root article, yes. But it doesn't sound like that's the intent of your license.
      - rndhouse 5y ago
        You asked: > But if your license isn't open source, then what good is it for monetizing open source programs? The OpenFare License is the commercial license that I believe should be used in the dual licensing circumstance described in the article. Thereby helping to monetizing open source programs. The OpenFare License intends to provide that commercial aspect whilst being equivalent to the MIT License where possible.
        josephcsible 5y ago
        Okay. I didn't expect that to be the case, but I'm happy to hear that it is.
tzs 5y ago
How do you fit AGPL in with the freedom to run the program as you wish, which is explained in the gnu.org link you gave as: > The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her. Suppose I find an AGPL program that takes a photo on standard input and does interesting transforms (like the effects Apple Booth and many chat programs support), I tweak the code a bit, and I hook it up to a camera and write some glue scripts that take a photo with the camera, apply a transform selected by pressing a button, and print the results which I put in a nice frame. I build this all into a booth and put it an a mall and use it to sell fancy framed goofy transforms of people. All fine under AGPL. I don't have to tell the people who come to my booth that I'm using AGPL software or tell them where to download it. But then I make it so if your mobile device is using the mall WiFi hotspot, you can upload a photo from your device to have my system make your goofy framed transform photo. Now AGPL requires me to tell them I'm using AGPL code and make the download available. So...the requirements change depending on how the inputs are supplied? If the inputs come from the camera hooked directly to the computer, I can use the tweaked AGPL program for my purpose (making goofy framed photos) "without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity", but if the inputs come through the mall WiFi I do now have to communicate about it with a specific entity (whoever supplied the inputs)?
- commoner 5y ago
  Section 13 of AGPLv3 lays this out: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html#section13 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html#section13 In the mall example, this requirement can be fulfilled by having a link to or an attachment of the source code on the interface that facilitates the photo upload. The developer does not have to communicate with the user, since the requirement applies to the software ("your modified version") and not to the developer. When a software license requires the source code of the licensed software to be released, that does not make the software unfree. This is because allowing users to access source code is one of the goals of the free software movement, as well as a prerequisite for freedoms 1 and 3: > The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. > The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms

rndhouse 5y ago

I don't claim that this is a free or open source license. The OpenFare license is about monetizing software in the most convenient way possible. I agree with the open source definition as given here: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

josephcsible 5y ago
But if your license isn't open source, then what good is it for monetizing open source programs?
- rndhouse 5y ago
  I think the entire point of the article is dual license FOSS and some other commercial license.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Of the root article, yes. But it doesn't sound like that's the intent of your license.
    - rndhouse 5y ago
      You asked: > But if your license isn't open source, then what good is it for monetizing open source programs? The OpenFare License is the commercial license that I believe should be used in the dual licensing circumstance described in the article. Thereby helping to monetizing open source programs. The OpenFare License intends to provide that commercial aspect whilst being equivalent to the MIT License where possible.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Okay. I didn't expect that to be the case, but I'm happy to hear that it is.

tzs 5y ago

How do you fit AGPL in with the freedom to run the program as you wish, which is explained in the gnu.org link you gave as: > The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her. Suppose I find an AGPL program that takes a photo on standard input and does interesting transforms (like the effects Apple Booth and many chat programs support), I tweak the code a bit, and I hook it up to a camera and write some glue scripts that take a photo with the camera, apply a transform selected by pressing a button, and print the results which I put in a nice frame. I build this all into a booth and put it an a mall and use it to sell fancy framed goofy transforms of people. All fine under AGPL. I don't have to tell the people who come to my booth that I'm using AGPL software or tell them where to download it. But then I make it so if your mobile device is using the mall WiFi hotspot, you can upload a photo from your device to have my system make your goofy framed transform photo. Now AGPL requires me to tell them I'm using AGPL code and make the download available. So...the requirements change depending on how the inputs are supplied? If the inputs come from the camera hooked directly to the computer, I can use the tweaked AGPL program for my purpose (making goofy framed photos) "without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity", but if the inputs come through the mall WiFi I do now have to communicate about it with a specific entity (whoever supplied the inputs)?

commoner 5y ago
Section 13 of AGPLv3 lays this out: > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html#section13 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html#section13 In the mall example, this requirement can be fulfilled by having a link to or an attachment of the source code on the interface that facilitates the photo upload. The developer does not have to communicate with the user, since the requirement applies to the software ("your modified version") and not to the developer. When a software license requires the source code of the licensed software to be released, that does not make the software unfree. This is because allowing users to access source code is one of the goals of the free software movement, as well as a prerequisite for freedoms 1 and 3: > The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this. > The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms