4 ms·

Then choose a license like AGPL and no corporation will touch your code. If you choose an Apache 2 license or similar, don't be shocked when people use it as th

by tensor 3y ago

Then choose a license like AGPL and no corporation will touch your code. If you choose an Apache 2 license or similar, don't be shocked when people use it as the terms intend. Personally, I will continue to release any code I open source as Apache 2, and if I intend to sell it, code will not be open source. You are free to think I am "wrong", but fortunately we need not agree with each other.

EarlKing 3y ago
And I am free to agree that authors can relicense their works under open source licenses that are inconvenient to the bourgeoisie. Such is life.
Pannoniae 3y ago
I don't have to intend to sell it in order to want to restrict others from doing so, though. Even if I want to allow others to sell the product or something which contains it, I can want to restrict them to certain usecases. (see "no more than 700M MAU" in LLaMa) AGPL is not a full solution to this because the SaaS loophole. Huggingface is entirely in the right here - there is zero reason for them to effectively subsidise their competitors who will obviously not contribute back in any meaningful way, but at the same time, want to publish the source, either for altruistic reasons or for publicity reasons.
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  > AGPL is not a full solution to this because the SaaS loophole. "SaaS loophole" is the GPL. AGPL is the thing that closes it.
  - thrown1212 3y ago
    No it doesn’t. Anyone can take AGPL code and wrap it up as a SaaS. AGPL forces you to publish changes even as a SaaS which GPL does not. But that doesn’t close the AWS problem that Elastic and others faced.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      The "loophole" is that you can modify and use the software without contributing back your changes. This has bad economics because then someone can take the work you've done, add 10% more effort to make it 10% better, and outcompete anyone else because their thing is 10% better than the free thing even though the original authors did 90% of the work and are still carrying most of the maintenance burden. People using free software for free is not a loophole.
echelon 3y ago
Source available / do whatever you want until 100M MAU seems like a great way to go. Lightweight users get lots of freedom and autonomy, big users have to pay to support the ecosystem.

by tensor 3y ago

EarlKing 3y ago

And I am free to agree that authors can relicense their works under open source licenses that are inconvenient to the bourgeoisie. Such is life.

Pannoniae 3y ago

I don't have to intend to sell it in order to want to restrict others from doing so, though. Even if I want to allow others to sell the product or something which contains it, I can want to restrict them to certain usecases. (see "no more than 700M MAU" in LLaMa) AGPL is not a full solution to this because the SaaS loophole. Huggingface is entirely in the right here - there is zero reason for them to effectively subsidise their competitors who will obviously not contribute back in any meaningful way, but at the same time, want to publish the source, either for altruistic reasons or for publicity reasons.

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
> AGPL is not a full solution to this because the SaaS loophole. "SaaS loophole" is the GPL. AGPL is the thing that closes it.
- thrown1212 3y ago
  No it doesn’t. Anyone can take AGPL code and wrap it up as a SaaS. AGPL forces you to publish changes even as a SaaS which GPL does not. But that doesn’t close the AWS problem that Elastic and others faced.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    The "loophole" is that you can modify and use the software without contributing back your changes. This has bad economics because then someone can take the work you've done, add 10% more effort to make it 10% better, and outcompete anyone else because their thing is 10% better than the free thing even though the original authors did 90% of the work and are still carrying most of the maintenance burden. People using free software for free is not a loophole.

echelon 3y ago

Source available / do whatever you want until 100M MAU seems like a great way to go. Lightweight users get lots of freedom and autonomy, big users have to pay to support the ecosystem.