6 ms·

Oh but then half of HN will complain about how that's not truly open according to a dictionary definition thus automatically becomes untrustworthy and they won'

by j1elo 4y ago

Oh but then half of HN will complain about how that's not truly open according to a dictionary definition thus automatically becomes untrustworthy and they won't touch it with a ten foot pole. (/s) Jokes aside, technically I don't disagree on the "dictionary definition" thing there... but it's interesting how the current landscape has shifted and now more control for the developer starts to become a common interest between "hackers". The original OSS licenses protected users (as in, final users) from predatory devs; nowadays, small devs and hackers talk in their forums about how to preemptively protect themselves against predatory users (as in, not final users, but other bigger devs that leech on other's work)

colordrops 4y ago
You're confusing closed source blobs and proprietary licenses with restrictive but truly open licenses like AGPL which would also protect the authors.
- wmf 4y ago
  In this case I don't think AGPL does what you want; it's oriented towards SaaS but this project is a bootloader.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    Sure, hence the "like". They could create or use a license that is fully open but prevents commercial use without a license.
    - wmf 4y ago
      Such a license is not possible.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        How exactly is that? There are plenty of licenses that don't allow commercial usage.
        cyphar 4y ago
        You cannot have a "fully open" license which disallows commercial usage. Both the OSI and FSF definitions of "open source" and "free software" licenses would exclude such a license. Of course you can create a proprietary license which disallows commercial usage, but it won't be "fully open".
        thescriptkiddie 4y ago
        FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage, and software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. It's only the OSI that doesn't allow this.
        dwohnitmok 4y ago
        > FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage Can they? The FSF seems pretty strict on saying that commercial usage cannot be excluded. > “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage No, they can't, use-restricted licenses are non-free, by the FSF definition. > software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. This is true, but the Free license cannot be use-restricted, or it ceases to be a Free license (if the copyright owner, owing no obligation to any upstream licensor, does it, they could add the use restriction to a Free license, but it would by that act cease to be a free license; that violates Freedom 0.)
- j1elo 4y ago
  It doesn't look like we can say "licenses like AGPL". It's more that AGPL is basically the only one in that vein. Remove the A, if you please, but that's pretty much it in terms of variety. On the other hand, reading HN over time I also got the idea that *GPL has been tried with the intention of avoiding abuse, and it failed several of those intentions. I now regret not having taken note each time I saw comments in that regard, for quick references. But there are big cases, not only small comments spread over HN; I guess the stereotypical one is MongoDB, which tried the AGPL path and in the end was not satisfactory enough for them.
  - colordrops 4y ago
    The problem is not with the GPL. The GPL is just as enforceable as any other proprietary license. The difference is that these amateur projects often don't have the resources to fight infringement.
    - Thorrez 4y ago
      If the problem is that there are no resources to fight infringement, then how would changing the license help at all?
      - donkeybeer 4y ago
        You have a legal leg to stand on that some lawyer might potentially fight for you, that's still better than just giving up and surrendering your weapons.
      - colordrops 4y ago
        I was addressing what seems to be an unfair criticism of the GPL, and not claiming that the license would help. In fact your comment reinforces the point - even a proprietary license wouldn't help with no legal backing.
driverdan 4y ago
I don't generally like restrictive licenses but in this case we're taking about running closed, commercial software on closed, commercial hardware. It makes sense to use a GPL to prevent one of those companies from taking all of that hard work and incorporating it back into their platforms for free.
- j1elo 4y ago
  Mine was just a lighthearted reflection on the issue, but in general I'm supportive of the copyleft ethos. And yes, in this case it would make a lot of sense. Actually my first reaction was to think, "Why are Microsoft themselves not doing this job?"

by j1elo 4y ago

colordrops 4y ago

You're confusing closed source blobs and proprietary licenses with restrictive but truly open licenses like AGPL which would also protect the authors.

wmf 4y ago
In this case I don't think AGPL does what you want; it's oriented towards SaaS but this project is a bootloader.
- colordrops 4y ago
  Sure, hence the "like". They could create or use a license that is fully open but prevents commercial use without a license.
  - wmf 4y ago
    Such a license is not possible.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      How exactly is that? There are plenty of licenses that don't allow commercial usage.
      - cyphar 4y ago
        You cannot have a "fully open" license which disallows commercial usage. Both the OSI and FSF definitions of "open source" and "free software" licenses would exclude such a license. Of course you can create a proprietary license which disallows commercial usage, but it won't be "fully open".
        thescriptkiddie 4y ago
        FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage, and software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. It's only the OSI that doesn't allow this.
        dwohnitmok 4y ago
        > FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage Can they? The FSF seems pretty strict on saying that commercial usage cannot be excluded. > “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” On the contrary, a free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. This policy is of fundamental importance—without this, free software could not achieve its aims. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > FSF-compatible licenses absolutely can exclude commercial usage No, they can't, use-restricted licenses are non-free, by the FSF definition. > software can be made simultaneously available under a separate (paid) commercial license if the authors wish. This is true, but the Free license cannot be use-restricted, or it ceases to be a Free license (if the copyright owner, owing no obligation to any upstream licensor, does it, they could add the use restriction to a Free license, but it would by that act cease to be a free license; that violates Freedom 0.)
j1elo 4y ago
It doesn't look like we can say "licenses like AGPL". It's more that AGPL is basically the only one in that vein. Remove the A, if you please, but that's pretty much it in terms of variety. On the other hand, reading HN over time I also got the idea that *GPL has been tried with the intention of avoiding abuse, and it failed several of those intentions. I now regret not having taken note each time I saw comments in that regard, for quick references. But there are big cases, not only small comments spread over HN; I guess the stereotypical one is MongoDB, which tried the AGPL path and in the end was not satisfactory enough for them.
- colordrops 4y ago
  The problem is not with the GPL. The GPL is just as enforceable as any other proprietary license. The difference is that these amateur projects often don't have the resources to fight infringement.
  - Thorrez 4y ago
    If the problem is that there are no resources to fight infringement, then how would changing the license help at all?
    - donkeybeer 4y ago
      You have a legal leg to stand on that some lawyer might potentially fight for you, that's still better than just giving up and surrendering your weapons.
    - colordrops 4y ago
      I was addressing what seems to be an unfair criticism of the GPL, and not claiming that the license would help. In fact your comment reinforces the point - even a proprietary license wouldn't help with no legal backing.

driverdan 4y ago

I don't generally like restrictive licenses but in this case we're taking about running closed, commercial software on closed, commercial hardware. It makes sense to use a GPL to prevent one of those companies from taking all of that hard work and incorporating it back into their platforms for free.

j1elo 4y ago
Mine was just a lighthearted reflection on the issue, but in general I'm supportive of the copyleft ethos. And yes, in this case it would make a lot of sense. Actually my first reaction was to think, "Why are Microsoft themselves not doing this job?"