6 ms·

I'm way more fine with AGPL (without CLA). That's perfectly within the spirit of open source, as it doesn't privilege one group of users over another. BPL, EPL

by Macha 3y ago

I'm way more fine with AGPL (without CLA). That's perfectly within the spirit of open source, as it doesn't privilege one group of users over another. BPL, EPL, SSPL are all "not open source", and AGPL+CLA is "we're setting up for a bait and switch with not open source versions".

pydry 3y ago
I find it curious that Microsoft doesnt get more shit for demanding a CLA, especially given that embrace, extend, extinguish is in their DNA.
- JimDabell 3y ago
  Even GNU projects ask people to sign a CLA.
  - teddyh 3y ago
    GNU projects assign the FSF as the copyright holder. The FSF is inherently trustworthy. (Since the FSF controls the GPL.)
    - elderbarry 3y ago
      One day someone untrustworthy will be in charge of the FSF, and ‘or later’ is suddenly going to be #awkward. Linus made the right call there, for sure.
      - teddyh 3y ago
        The FSF is not an autocratic kingdom with a despotic ruler on top. It is a 501(c)(3) foundation, with bylaws and regulations to cover this eventuality. This was all hashed out years ago in numerous flame wars on Usenet, as I’m sure you know.
  - pxc 3y ago
    Assigning copyright to something like the FSF or the Free Qt Foundation is not at all like assigning copyright to Hashicorp or Microsoft or Oracle.
bawolff 3y ago
> AGPL+CLA is "we're setting up for a bait and switch with not open source versions". Which is fine imo as long as the moment they pull the bait/switch they stop calling it open source (and others can fork at that point)
- Macha 3y ago
  I think I'd be fine _using_ an AGPL+CLA product, but not contributing.
  - pydry 3y ago
    Thats exactly the point.
    - Macha 3y ago
      I'm not sure if we're agreeing or not to be honest. I'm not sure if you're implying it's a bad thing that people won't contribute to AGPL+CLA (and thereby justifies these more restrictive licenses), or agreeing that people shouldn't contribute to AGPL+CLA (and thereby volunteer their time to the benefit of one specific vendor).
      - bawolff 3y ago
        Whether or not someone contributes to something and under what terms is a personal choice. I dont think there is anything wrong with not contributing for any reason at all. Or if you dont like the cla, forking it and not using a cla in your fork. I view that as a very different question from whether its ethical to advertize something agpl+cla as being open source.

by Macha 3y ago

pydry 3y ago

I find it curious that Microsoft doesnt get more shit for demanding a CLA, especially given that embrace, extend, extinguish is in their DNA.

JimDabell 3y ago
Even GNU projects ask people to sign a CLA.
- teddyh 3y ago
  GNU projects assign the FSF as the copyright holder. The FSF is inherently trustworthy. (Since the FSF controls the GPL.)
  - elderbarry 3y ago
    One day someone untrustworthy will be in charge of the FSF, and ‘or later’ is suddenly going to be #awkward. Linus made the right call there, for sure.
    - teddyh 3y ago
      The FSF is not an autocratic kingdom with a despotic ruler on top. It is a 501(c)(3) foundation, with bylaws and regulations to cover this eventuality. This was all hashed out years ago in numerous flame wars on Usenet, as I’m sure you know.
- pxc 3y ago
  Assigning copyright to something like the FSF or the Free Qt Foundation is not at all like assigning copyright to Hashicorp or Microsoft or Oracle.

bawolff 3y ago

> AGPL+CLA is "we're setting up for a bait and switch with not open source versions". Which is fine imo as long as the moment they pull the bait/switch they stop calling it open source (and others can fork at that point)

Macha 3y ago
I think I'd be fine _using_ an AGPL+CLA product, but not contributing.
- pydry 3y ago
  Thats exactly the point.
  - Macha 3y ago
    I'm not sure if we're agreeing or not to be honest. I'm not sure if you're implying it's a bad thing that people won't contribute to AGPL+CLA (and thereby justifies these more restrictive licenses), or agreeing that people shouldn't contribute to AGPL+CLA (and thereby volunteer their time to the benefit of one specific vendor).
    - bawolff 3y ago
      Whether or not someone contributes to something and under what terms is a personal choice. I dont think there is anything wrong with not contributing for any reason at all. Or if you dont like the cla, forking it and not using a cla in your fork. I view that as a very different question from whether its ethical to advertize something agpl+cla as being open source.