5 ms·

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.)
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - pabs3 4y ago
        Discriminating against commercial usage is not allowed under the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
        ngcc_hk 4y ago
        In fact this is whole point of open source VS free source.
        justinclift 4y ago
        Doesn't seem accurate? Both Free (of the FSF meaning) and Open Source (of the OSI meaning) software explicitly allow for commercial usage.
        ngcc_hk 4y ago
        Read history guys. I even did a master thesis cf the two. The open source is against the free source by deliberating allow commerical software. Down vote you may, you cannot change the history. In fact learn seriously about that part, otherwise you miss the whole point of open source. Well, whilst down voted let me repeat the thing - some Vp did not invent internet but he did let go of only education institute used that network. Now it allows commercial activities. The mix is hard. The pure is ease. But without the mix and the complexity dealing with this, you do not have today open word of software and even internet. And mix is hard. (And pure like free source is so pure it is a cult those days.)
        justinclift 4y ago
        > The open source is against the free source by deliberating allow commerical software. Again, and to put it even more clearly... you're very wrong. Source, from the actual "Free source" people you're talking about: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html > Read history guys. I even did a master thesis cf the two. Interesting. Is your master thesis available for me to take a look at? I'd be interested in seeing how and why you arrived at your current viewpoint.
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.

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.)
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - pabs3 4y ago
      Discriminating against commercial usage is not allowed under the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
      - ngcc_hk 4y ago
        In fact this is whole point of open source VS free source.
        justinclift 4y ago
        Doesn't seem accurate? Both Free (of the FSF meaning) and Open Source (of the OSI meaning) software explicitly allow for commercial usage.
        ngcc_hk 4y ago
        Read history guys. I even did a master thesis cf the two. The open source is against the free source by deliberating allow commerical software. Down vote you may, you cannot change the history. In fact learn seriously about that part, otherwise you miss the whole point of open source. Well, whilst down voted let me repeat the thing - some Vp did not invent internet but he did let go of only education institute used that network. Now it allows commercial activities. The mix is hard. The pure is ease. But without the mix and the complexity dealing with this, you do not have today open word of software and even internet. And mix is hard. (And pure like free source is so pure it is a cult those days.)
        justinclift 4y ago
        > The open source is against the free source by deliberating allow commerical software. Again, and to put it even more clearly... you're very wrong. Source, from the actual "Free source" people you're talking about: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html > Read history guys. I even did a master thesis cf the two. Interesting. Is your master thesis available for me to take a look at? I'd be interested in seeing how and why you arrived at your current viewpoint.

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.