4 ms·

The problem with absolutism: it ignores how trivial it is to copy and deploy a lot of modern programs. Condemning licenses which protect against juggernauts lik

The problem with absolutism: it ignores how trivial it is to copy and deploy a lot of modern programs. Condemning licenses which protect against juggernauts like Amazon leaves no middle ground between free software and proprietary software.

kstrauser 5y ago
Purely for practical reasons, I tend strongly toward using FOSS in all companies I've worked for. Ideology aside, if the authors go out of business or drop support, I can still support it myself (or pay someone too). From that position, I don't see a lot of middle ground between FOSS and proprietary: either it's FOSS or it's not. I don't mean that harshly, and it's not as though I flat-out wouldn't use proprietary software. I certainly wouldn't judge others who do. It's just that I see non-FOSS software as a significant risk that has to be mitigated, perhaps by limiting its use to cases where it'd be inconvenient if it went away, as opposed to a company-ending event. I don't think that absolutism, which for me carries a connotation of purity or dogma. For me, it's a pragmatic choice. For me, software using this license doesn't have an advantage over other proprietary licenses. I view it as regular, commercial software with an trial discount. Which is OK! That doesn't make it bad!
- mwcampbell 5y ago
  > Ideology aside, if the authors go out of business or drop support, I can still support it myself (or pay someone too). If I'm not mistaken, the intention with newer licenses such as this is that developers still release the source; they're just not allowing unrestricted free use. So if they go out of business or drop support for that code, user can still continue maintaining it, at least privately. Meanwhile, the fact that the authors are getting directly compensated for the software makes it less likely that they'll go out of business or drop support. The availability of source makes a big difference, doesn't it?
  - kstrauser 5y ago
    > The availability of source makes a big difference, doesn't it? It helps a lot, but it's not sufficient by itself. Am I still allowed to use the software if the company goes away? Can I distribute it to my customers? Can I deploy it on servers it's not already deployed to? With FOSS, the answers are clear. Some commercial software also has clauses like "if we cease to exist, your license reverts to the terms of the MIT license" or such.
    - mwcampbell 5y ago
      Yeah, having the code become permissively licensed if the original developer goes out of business seems like a good compromise. That said, we can't make policy decisions based solely on what leaves one group (in this case, the users of abandoned software) better off in the hypothetical worst case. We need to balance that with what's fair for everyone (particularly upstream authors in this case), ideally avoiding that worst case if possible.
      - kstrauser 5y ago
        I get it. I do. It's just that, for me personally, this isn't any better than say a Microsoft license. Years ago, I would've described it as shareware. In fact, I still might.

kstrauser 5y ago

Purely for practical reasons, I tend strongly toward using FOSS in all companies I've worked for. Ideology aside, if the authors go out of business or drop support, I can still support it myself (or pay someone too). From that position, I don't see a lot of middle ground between FOSS and proprietary: either it's FOSS or it's not. I don't mean that harshly, and it's not as though I flat-out wouldn't use proprietary software. I certainly wouldn't judge others who do. It's just that I see non-FOSS software as a significant risk that has to be mitigated, perhaps by limiting its use to cases where it'd be inconvenient if it went away, as opposed to a company-ending event. I don't think that absolutism, which for me carries a connotation of purity or dogma. For me, it's a pragmatic choice. For me, software using this license doesn't have an advantage over other proprietary licenses. I view it as regular, commercial software with an trial discount. Which is OK! That doesn't make it bad!

mwcampbell 5y ago
> Ideology aside, if the authors go out of business or drop support, I can still support it myself (or pay someone too). If I'm not mistaken, the intention with newer licenses such as this is that developers still release the source; they're just not allowing unrestricted free use. So if they go out of business or drop support for that code, user can still continue maintaining it, at least privately. Meanwhile, the fact that the authors are getting directly compensated for the software makes it less likely that they'll go out of business or drop support. The availability of source makes a big difference, doesn't it?
- kstrauser 5y ago
  > The availability of source makes a big difference, doesn't it? It helps a lot, but it's not sufficient by itself. Am I still allowed to use the software if the company goes away? Can I distribute it to my customers? Can I deploy it on servers it's not already deployed to? With FOSS, the answers are clear. Some commercial software also has clauses like "if we cease to exist, your license reverts to the terms of the MIT license" or such.
  - mwcampbell 5y ago
    Yeah, having the code become permissively licensed if the original developer goes out of business seems like a good compromise. That said, we can't make policy decisions based solely on what leaves one group (in this case, the users of abandoned software) better off in the hypothetical worst case. We need to balance that with what's fair for everyone (particularly upstream authors in this case), ideally avoiding that worst case if possible.
    - kstrauser 5y ago
      I get it. I do. It's just that, for me personally, this isn't any better than say a Microsoft license. Years ago, I would've described it as shareware. In fact, I still might.