3 ms·

None. For better or worse, stopping people from using (which includes hosting for third parties) your code without publishing the modified source code is incomp

None. For better or worse, stopping people from using (which includes hosting for third parties) your code without publishing the modified source code is incompatible with the Free Software Definition. Any discussion around what a license trying to solve that problem should look like needs to start by accepting that fact, and going from there. Either we change the Free Software Definition, or we accept that such licenses can't be Free Software licenses. There's no magical solution that satisfies both. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Uehreka 5y ago
I get what you’re saying from a philosophical perspective, but I think there are a lot of developers and shops that might care more about achieving this “anti-SaaSification” goal than they do about what the FSF thinks. You can try and use terminology like “EULAs” to liken them to big corporations that restrict usage, but so long as it’s an instance of “the little guy” restricting usage on the part of “the big guy”, I have a feeling those criticisms might not stick. I’m not saying they’re right necessarily, just that falling back on definitions like the FSD in arguments presupposes that the people you’re talking to know what the FSD is, care about it and share your belief system.
- marcan_42 5y ago
  You're presupposing I oppose the principle of anti-SaaSification. I don't. I understand the problem and why some people care about it. You don't want big corporations to host and sell access to your code without contributing back. I get it. What I oppose is what the FSF does, which is mislead people into thinking this is achievable within Free Software without making deep fundamental changes to what Free Software means. And I especially oppose the AGPL for its utter brokenness and unsuitability for almost any purpose. > You can try and use terminology like “EULAs” to liken them to big corporations that restrict usage That's correct terminology though. I'm not trying to use scary words to be scary. That's literally what EULAs do. If it sounds scary it's because it is a deep change to how a license behaves and people need to be aware of that. If you want to release your software under an EULA that prohibits SaaSification, I have absolutely nothing against you - more power to you! It's your software. I have nothing against proprietary software either, I use it every day (though I prefer free software where possible, for a multitude of reasons). Just don't try to hide the fact that that choice of license makes it non-free. In fact, I'm a lot more reluctant to use AGPLed software than lots of proprietary software, because the AGPL is worse in that it pretends to be a free software license, giving you the code, and then sets up a landmine for anyone who actually makes a change to step on, and it has been marketed in a way that confuses everyone involved. As I mentioned in the reply to my analysis comment, I already accidentally violated the AGPL once because I ran a script that unknowingly patched some AGPL code without following the terms. If the code hadn't been there to begin with, or the AGPL had been correctly recognized as non-free and thus not amenable to such patching, that wouldn't have happened.

Uehreka 5y ago

I get what you’re saying from a philosophical perspective, but I think there are a lot of developers and shops that might care more about achieving this “anti-SaaSification” goal than they do about what the FSF thinks. You can try and use terminology like “EULAs” to liken them to big corporations that restrict usage, but so long as it’s an instance of “the little guy” restricting usage on the part of “the big guy”, I have a feeling those criticisms might not stick. I’m not saying they’re right necessarily, just that falling back on definitions like the FSD in arguments presupposes that the people you’re talking to know what the FSD is, care about it and share your belief system.

marcan_42 5y ago
You're presupposing I oppose the principle of anti-SaaSification. I don't. I understand the problem and why some people care about it. You don't want big corporations to host and sell access to your code without contributing back. I get it. What I oppose is what the FSF does, which is mislead people into thinking this is achievable within Free Software without making deep fundamental changes to what Free Software means. And I especially oppose the AGPL for its utter brokenness and unsuitability for almost any purpose. > You can try and use terminology like “EULAs” to liken them to big corporations that restrict usage That's correct terminology though. I'm not trying to use scary words to be scary. That's literally what EULAs do. If it sounds scary it's because it is a deep change to how a license behaves and people need to be aware of that. If you want to release your software under an EULA that prohibits SaaSification, I have absolutely nothing against you - more power to you! It's your software. I have nothing against proprietary software either, I use it every day (though I prefer free software where possible, for a multitude of reasons). Just don't try to hide the fact that that choice of license makes it non-free. In fact, I'm a lot more reluctant to use AGPLed software than lots of proprietary software, because the AGPL is worse in that it pretends to be a free software license, giving you the code, and then sets up a landmine for anyone who actually makes a change to step on, and it has been marketed in a way that confuses everyone involved. As I mentioned in the reply to my analysis comment, I already accidentally violated the AGPL once because I ran a script that unknowingly patched some AGPL code without following the terms. If the code hadn't been there to begin with, or the AGPL had been correctly recognized as non-free and thus not amenable to such patching, that wouldn't have happened.