3 ms·

Would you mind explaining why you have a problem with a clause stating "use our product however you wish, as long as it is not to compete with us"? It sounds re

Would you mind explaining why you have a problem with a clause stating "use our product however you wish, as long as it is not to compete with us"? It sounds reasonable to me and the opposite which you are defending sounds unsustainable and harmful to the open source ecosystem. (There was a talk given at Strange Loop titled The Economic of Programming Languages by the creator of Elm about this and it sounds like he's hesitant to release something interesting he's been working on because of it. So it's a real issue in my opinion that can lead to a worse outcome for most of us.)

tsimionescu 3y ago
The free software movement generally believes that software exists only to solve problems for its users. The creator of a piece of software has no moral rights to profit it from it more than any other user. Richard Stallman doesn't complain that Linus Torvalds used the GNU userspace tools to outocompete HURD out of existence. It's perfectly reasonable not to subscribe to this ideology. I don't particularly think it is a very good or well motivated ideology. However, you can't pretend that you are a free software adherent while also wishing to prevent certain uses of your software. Note that Stallman has explicitly come out against IBM RedHat's similar complaints about people distributing copies of RHEL for free for this very reason.
growse 3y ago
In brief: "use our product however you wish, as long as it is not to compete with us" doesn't define "us" (you now, or for all perpetuity? What if you get bought by a large litigious-happy database vendor?) or "compete" (same market segment? Geographical area? Product type? Specific use-case?). The clause is not written in good faith. It's designed to essentially make it enormously risky to use in any serious environment, because the actual ambition by the clause author is that no-one else uses their software.
- zogrodea 3y ago
  I don't think you're right to assert bad faith. Look at Sentry's track record allowing users to self-host, and this as a step that makes their work more permissive than what they previously had (for example, the shorter duration). I don't challenge that the license may have shortcomings, but I think better evidence is needed before bad faith can be asserted.
  - growse 3y ago
    You may be right, I may be wrong. I just find it difficult to look at a phrase in a license which has been deliberately crafted to be intentionally vague as being anything else.

tsimionescu 3y ago

The free software movement generally believes that software exists only to solve problems for its users. The creator of a piece of software has no moral rights to profit it from it more than any other user. Richard Stallman doesn't complain that Linus Torvalds used the GNU userspace tools to outocompete HURD out of existence. It's perfectly reasonable not to subscribe to this ideology. I don't particularly think it is a very good or well motivated ideology. However, you can't pretend that you are a free software adherent while also wishing to prevent certain uses of your software. Note that Stallman has explicitly come out against IBM RedHat's similar complaints about people distributing copies of RHEL for free for this very reason.

growse 3y ago

In brief: "use our product however you wish, as long as it is not to compete with us" doesn't define "us" (you now, or for all perpetuity? What if you get bought by a large litigious-happy database vendor?) or "compete" (same market segment? Geographical area? Product type? Specific use-case?). The clause is not written in good faith. It's designed to essentially make it enormously risky to use in any serious environment, because the actual ambition by the clause author is that no-one else uses their software.

zogrodea 3y ago
I don't think you're right to assert bad faith. Look at Sentry's track record allowing users to self-host, and this as a step that makes their work more permissive than what they previously had (for example, the shorter duration). I don't challenge that the license may have shortcomings, but I think better evidence is needed before bad faith can be asserted.
- growse 3y ago
  You may be right, I may be wrong. I just find it difficult to look at a phrase in a license which has been deliberately crafted to be intentionally vague as being anything else.