3 ms·

> The BSL license is not an Open Source license because it restricts users' freedom to run the program however they wish. I’m no expert, but how is this any di

> The BSL license is not an Open Source license because it restricts users' freedom to run the program however they wish. I’m no expert, but how is this any different than AGPL restrictions/requirements to redistribute source code if you are running a modification on a server? Obviously, AGPL offers greater “benefit” with its requirement, but this seems to still be a restriction on how you can run the software.

erinnh 3y ago
Does it? You can run the software with AGPL. You simply need to contribute it back to the main project. That’s a marked difference.
- commoner 3y ago
  > You can run the software with AGPL. You simply need to contribute it back to the main project. Close, but not quite! Under the AGPL, you only need to make the source code available to the people who interact with the software over a computer network. You don't necessarily need to contribute the code back to the main project. > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
  - erinnh 3y ago
    You’re quite correct. I tend to forget this point, because, to me, there isn’t much difference.
- jwagenet 3y ago
  You can run the software with BSL. You simply need to run it in non-production. A totally different restriction, yes, but a restriction that goes against OPs “no restriction to run” clause none the less.
  - commoner 3y ago
    TFA's phrasing is taken from the Free Software Definition: > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html Telling the user that they cannot run software in production is a restriction on the purpose for which the software can be ran. Telling the user that the source of the software must be made available to other users whom the software is distributed to over a computer network is not a restriction on the purpose for which the software can be ran, because it can still be ran for any purpose.

erinnh 3y ago

Does it? You can run the software with AGPL. You simply need to contribute it back to the main project. That’s a marked difference.

commoner 3y ago
> You can run the software with AGPL. You simply need to contribute it back to the main project. Close, but not quite! Under the AGPL, you only need to make the source code available to the people who interact with the software over a computer network. You don't necessarily need to contribute the code back to the main project. > 13. Remote Network Interaction; Use with the GNU General Public License. > Notwithstanding any other provision of this License, if you modify the Program, your modified version must prominently offer all users interacting with it remotely through a computer network (if your version supports such interaction) an opportunity to receive the Corresponding Source of your version by providing access to the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge, through some standard or customary means of facilitating copying of software. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.html
- erinnh 3y ago
  You’re quite correct. I tend to forget this point, because, to me, there isn’t much difference.
jwagenet 3y ago
You can run the software with BSL. You simply need to run it in non-production. A totally different restriction, yes, but a restriction that goes against OPs “no restriction to run” clause none the less.
- commoner 3y ago
  TFA's phrasing is taken from the Free Software Definition: > The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html Telling the user that they cannot run software in production is a restriction on the purpose for which the software can be ran. Telling the user that the source of the software must be made available to other users whom the software is distributed to over a computer network is not a restriction on the purpose for which the software can be ran, because it can still be ran for any purpose.