4 ms·
As long as there is money to be made by blurring the line, people will continue to do it. But there is no consensus on what is "open source". Is AGPL open sou
by TAForObvReasons 4y ago
As long as there is money to be made by blurring the line, people will continue to do it.
But there is no consensus on what is "open source". Is AGPL open source? Despite the FSF and OSI approving AGPL, many would argue that it is a EULA.
The inevitable result is the erosion of the generic branding "open source" and the rise of specific licenses. "MIT" or "Apache" or "BSD" evoke one set of reactions, while "GPL" or "MPL" evoke another.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- jefftk 4y ago> there is no consensus on what is "open source" It's not "consensus" in the sense of "unanimity" (is anything ever, when it comes to widely used terms?) but there's a "consensus" in the sense of widespread agreement to use the OSI's definition. > Is AGPL open source? Yes. Why wouldn't it be? It meets all the standard requirements (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) and the OSI has approved it.
- TAForObvReasons 4y agoMany have argued the AGPL is a EULA, not a proper software license. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31190064 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31190064 for example: > If I were to run a modified AGPL'd SSH server on my own hardware, the question of whether I'm violating the AGPL depends on whether I'm allowing others to access it remotely. If the AGPL can be violated without copyright infringement, it's clearly in a different legal category than the GPL. That "[AGPL] meets all the standard requirements" and "OSI has approved it" is really an indictment of OSI judgment, not a sound argument with basis in copyright law.