4 ms·
> 73 [...] Here we are particularly concerned about the practice of program authors who purport to license their works under the GPL with an additional requirem
by didibus 5y ago
> 73 [...] Here we are particularly concerned about the practice of program
authors who purport to license their works under the GPL with an additional requirement
that contradicts the terms of the GPL, such as a prohibition on commercial use. Such
terms can make the program non-free, and thus contradict the basic purpose of the GNU
GPL; but even when the conditions are not fundamentally unethical, adding them in this
way invariably makes the rights and obligations of licensees uncertain.
It still doesn't sit right with me. Like the program authors should be allowed to license things however they want. A clause to contradict the program authors so as to not have them contradict the GPL is kind of strange to me.
I get the possibly "false advertisement" angle, like hey we're AGPL "caugh but not really". As a scheme to fool users into thinking they can use it freely. But still, I feel that be better to be on a user to read the additional terms and decide for themselves.
At least the court recognized you can't call a modified AGPL free and open source, so I guess the court established that and now this clause is no longer needed on the AGPL maybe?
- mr_toad 5y ago> Like the program authors should be allowed to license things however they want. There’s nothing to stop them coming up with their own license (like MongoDB did). They don’t have to plagiarise the GPL.
- rectang 5y agoMongoDB's Server Side Public License is a derivative of the AGPL. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License > The Server Side Public License (SSPL) is a very strong copyleft source-available software license introduced by MongoDB Inc. in 2018. It is a modified version of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3.
- ZiiS 5y agoWow who would trust a license that is so clearly violating its own license. Hilariously they provide a diff showing them stripping the copyright https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compared-to-AGPL.pdf https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compare...
- pabs3 5y agoElsewhere in this thread it was mentioned that the FSF FAQ allows derivative licenses, as long as they have different names.
- ZiiS 5y agoYes, they must have been granted another license to copy the license. Presumably this asked them to also remove attribution to avoid confusion.
- vinceguidry 5y agoThe license grant is in the FAQ. If it comes down to a legal fight the FAQ is usable in court.
- CapsAdmin 5y agoThe way I see the FSF is that they try to create a system where everyone's freedom to change and share between other people is maximized. To be able to meet this goal we need some rules, like not being able to change software and share as closed source. We don't want near absolute freedom like the MIT license. For the same reason we don't want to live in a country without any rules. So this clause aligns perfectly with how I view GPL, maximizing people's freedom to modify and share the software.
- inopinatus 5y agoThe coercive behavior the FSF promulgates represents a narrow and openly ideological view of "freedom". Thankfully, there are other ways to share open-source software, ones that don't restrict options or create burdensome obligations for users & contributors.
- vinceguidry 5y agoOpenly ideological is better than nakedly profit-seeking, which is mostly all the open source community offers.
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- trelane 5y agoWhat "burdensome obligations" does the GPLv3 impose on each group? I'm especially keen to know what restrictions the GPL poses for users.
- DangitBobby 5y agoI personally consider being forced to open-source derivitive software (or software that merely uses it) to be burdensome enough not to use GPL projects.
- 5y ago