4 ms·
> Against this model open source software is offering zero resistance. Pushover licenses like MIT offer zero resistance to it, but that's just a reason to use
by josephcsible 3y ago
> Against this model open source software is offering zero resistance.
Pushover licenses like MIT offer zero resistance to it, but that's just a reason to use better licenses like AGPLv3 instead, not to abandon open source entirely.
- sneak 3y agoAGPL is very clearly a nonfree license, despite what the FSF says.
- worik 3y agoPlease elaborate
- sneak 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35352641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35352641 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30495647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30495647 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30044019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30044019
- josephcsible 3y agoThe OSI and DFSG are both fine with the AGPL too, so it's hard to take that claim seriously, especially as a bare assertion with zero evidence.
- wmf 3y agoAGPL: If you want to host it you have to pay. SSPL: If you want to host it you have to pay. BUSL: If you want to host it you have to pay. Yet one is OSI-approved and the others aren't.
- pritambaral 3y agoMore like: AGPL: If you want to host it, go ahead. If you want to host a modified version of it, provide source. SSPL: If you want to host it, release your entire stack under the SSPL first. Good luck with that, lol. BUSL: If you want to host it, you better not be making any money from it.
- api 3y ago... and this is the problem. Any license that doesn't help feed the non-free SaaS ecosystem is a non-free license.
- sneak 3y agoI agree. SaaS isn’t a loophole, it’s one of the legitimate things you can do with software freedom, in letter and in spirit. Software is not services, and attempting to conflate them is, at the very least, logically flawed.
- api 3y agoThe structural economy we're creating is one where privacy, autonomy, and software freedom are only for nerds. Everyone else uses services and surrenders all privacy and usually control of their own data. That's because making software usable is extremely difficult and expensive. If software must be free but services are paid, all the funding goes to make services usable and not software. This results in an ecosystem where only highly technical people can own their own compute. Is that what we want? You have to think in a whole-systems way not in terms of single isolated issues. We're making free bricks to build a prison and reasoning that this is fine because bricks should be free and people should be free to build prisons with them. It might come down to the question of what open source is about. If it's about creating a software ecosystem for nerds to have freedom, I'd argue that it's been successful in that endeavor. If there is any goal of freedom for the rest of humanity, it has been a failure. Are we a guild that cares only for ourselves and our profession?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]