4 ms·

> The whole point of FLOSS is to ensure everyone has the right to access, fix, and alter the software. Why do you feel anyone's revenue is relevant? Not being

by piaste 4y ago

> The whole point of FLOSS is to ensure everyone has the right to access, fix, and alter the software. Why do you feel anyone's revenue is relevant? Not being relevant isn't the same as not being important. The aims of FLOSS are good thing, and they are successfully achieved when every computer in the world runs 100% FLOSS code. But if all code is FLOSS, then the cloud giants can sleep unchallenged, because they have the best machines to run the same code as everybody else. This is an entirely unintended side-effect. If you consider it an undesirable side-effect as well (and I do), the BSL and similar licenses are a reasonable next step. They preserve the social benefits of open source licenses, while leaving room for upstarts to build a small moat to challenge the cloud giants' gigantic ones.

yawaramin 4y ago
> They preserve the social benefits of open source licenses What benefits? By not being FLOSS they just removed most of the rights and freedoms that users would have with the software.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- piaste 4y ago
  I don't think this level of absolutism is justified. I think that it's a stretch to define cloud providers as "users" in the first place: What is Akka? A distributed messaging platform. If you want to use Akka to move messages, then the SSPL is just like the AGPL to you. (Even if you're Amazon! No discrimination against trillion-dollar companies!) If you want to use Akka and Akka's code to learn how messaging work, then the SSPL is just like the AGPL to you. If you want to use Akka's code as a starting point to author your custom messaging platform, then the SSPL is just like the AGPL to you. When is it not like the AGPL to you? Only when you don't want to actually use Akka yourself, but you want to charge others a fee to let them use Akka on your server. In that case, and only in that case, SSPL says "you are not a user of this program and are not entitled to the Four Freedoms". I find myself in agreement with that assessment. EDIT: I originally mentioned the BSL in this thread, that was a mistake. The BSL (free except for users >$25M) is a non-free license that I consider legitimate and understandable and better than almost any other non-free license, but less than ideal. The SSPL (free except for cloud providers) is the non-free license that I find most acceptable, to the point where I think AGPL projects will make the world a better place by switching to the SSPL.
  - yawaramin 4y ago
    As established in my earlier comment, your original premise and your entire argument is incorrect. Akka is not a 'messaging platform'. It's a bunch of libraries that you link in to your JVM app. No one (well, no sane person) would try to 'charge others a fee to let them use Akka' on their server because technologically that doesn't make sense. It's akin to charging people a fee for a service to concatenate strings together. Hence as you can see, the SSPL is not an appropriate fit for Akka anyway.

by piaste 4y ago

yawaramin 4y ago

> They preserve the social benefits of open source licenses What benefits? By not being FLOSS they just removed most of the rights and freedoms that users would have with the software.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
piaste 4y ago
I don't think this level of absolutism is justified. I think that it's a stretch to define cloud providers as "users" in the first place: What is Akka? A distributed messaging platform. If you want to use Akka to move messages, then the SSPL is just like the AGPL to you. (Even if you're Amazon! No discrimination against trillion-dollar companies!) If you want to use Akka and Akka's code to learn how messaging work, then the SSPL is just like the AGPL to you. If you want to use Akka's code as a starting point to author your custom messaging platform, then the SSPL is just like the AGPL to you. When is it not like the AGPL to you? Only when you don't want to actually use Akka yourself, but you want to charge others a fee to let them use Akka on your server. In that case, and only in that case, SSPL says "you are not a user of this program and are not entitled to the Four Freedoms". I find myself in agreement with that assessment. EDIT: I originally mentioned the BSL in this thread, that was a mistake. The BSL (free except for users >$25M) is a non-free license that I consider legitimate and understandable and better than almost any other non-free license, but less than ideal. The SSPL (free except for cloud providers) is the non-free license that I find most acceptable, to the point where I think AGPL projects will make the world a better place by switching to the SSPL.
- yawaramin 4y ago
  As established in my earlier comment, your original premise and your entire argument is incorrect. Akka is not a 'messaging platform'. It's a bunch of libraries that you link in to your JVM app. No one (well, no sane person) would try to 'charge others a fee to let them use Akka' on their server because technologically that doesn't make sense. It's akin to charging people a fee for a service to concatenate strings together. Hence as you can see, the SSPL is not an appropriate fit for Akka anyway.