3 ms·
A license like that makes it no longer FOSS. The AGPLv3 will accomplish the same goal while still being FOSS.
by josephcsible 3y ago
A license like that makes it no longer FOSS. The AGPLv3 will accomplish the same goal while still being FOSS.
- amelius 3y agoAgpl has no clause for large companies, so it's different. Also, may I ask what is your fundamental problem with such a license besides perhaps the name and purity? This license will only affect the insanely rich, and in a way that they will most likely not even feel.
- CaptainFever 3y agoLicense profileration, which makes it harder for people to know what is acceptable or not. Also, GPL is well-known, well-tested, and already excludes most companies. If they want to use our stuff, they better pay it back and become GPL too. That's the practical concern. The idealistic concern is that free software is all about handing power to the users. Much like how a pen can't restrict how you use it, developers shouldn't be able to restrict how users can use it. Note that the only restriction GPL has is that you cannot further restrict it (tolerance paradox). It's an ethical position to give power to the users, regardless of who they are, because software owners should not have the power to control the users. From here, a software developer decreeing "you may not use my stuff if you make more than X amount per year" is abusing their power over users, which is unethical. Imagine if a pen company told you you cannot use their pens if you met X Y or Z conditions. It's just not right. Stallman covered this: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...