3 ms·

To reply to your edit, you are making my case for me. One of my points is that FOSS can be worse for the end user because companies like Juniper can take a lot

To reply to your edit, you are making my case for me. One of my points is that FOSS can be worse for the end user because companies like Juniper can take a lot of it and make it proprietary. This is true even for the GPL in these SaaS days. I personally think that copyleft is a necessary thing for non-FOSS SAMS because of this.

prepend 3y ago
> One of my points is that FOSS can be worse for the end user because companies like Juniper can take a lot of it and make it proprietary. I disagree with this point. They don’t make the FOSS worse. They make a new thing. The original is still available. And if it was SAMS it wouldn’t save it from this fate as it would never be used enough to get to this point. So SAMS isn’t a defense against “abuse.” But I argue that this isn’t abuse at all as the license is used as designed. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. If I create a project with MIT, I’m perfectly fine with Juniper taking it and bolting it onto their own proprietary software. I don’t think this makes my project worse.
- gavinhoward 3y ago
  > They don’t make the FOSS worse. They make a new thing. The original is still available. But the new thing is not, and unwitting end users using the new thing probably are never told about the open alternative. > And if it was SAMS it wouldn’t save it from this fate as it would never be used enough to get to this point. If SAMS were as accepted as FOSS, I think SAMS would be used enough to get to that point. > But I argue that this isn’t abuse at all as the license is used as designed. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. I'm not arguing for abolishing FOSS. Projects that want this can still use FOSS as it is. I'm arguing for SAMS to be accepted as a valid alternative. Based on the comments on this page, it is not as accepted.
  - prepend 3y ago
    > If SAMS were as accepted as FOSS But that’s impossible as SAMS is not FOSS.
    - gavinhoward 3y ago
      *accepted to the same level that FOSS is accepted.

prepend 3y ago

> One of my points is that FOSS can be worse for the end user because companies like Juniper can take a lot of it and make it proprietary. I disagree with this point. They don’t make the FOSS worse. They make a new thing. The original is still available. And if it was SAMS it wouldn’t save it from this fate as it would never be used enough to get to this point. So SAMS isn’t a defense against “abuse.” But I argue that this isn’t abuse at all as the license is used as designed. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. If I create a project with MIT, I’m perfectly fine with Juniper taking it and bolting it onto their own proprietary software. I don’t think this makes my project worse.

gavinhoward 3y ago
> They don’t make the FOSS worse. They make a new thing. The original is still available. But the new thing is not, and unwitting end users using the new thing probably are never told about the open alternative. > And if it was SAMS it wouldn’t save it from this fate as it would never be used enough to get to this point. If SAMS were as accepted as FOSS, I think SAMS would be used enough to get to that point. > But I argue that this isn’t abuse at all as the license is used as designed. It’s not a bug, it’s a feature. I'm not arguing for abolishing FOSS. Projects that want this can still use FOSS as it is. I'm arguing for SAMS to be accepted as a valid alternative. Based on the comments on this page, it is not as accepted.
- prepend 3y ago
  > If SAMS were as accepted as FOSS But that’s impossible as SAMS is not FOSS.
  - gavinhoward 3y ago
    *accepted to the same level that FOSS is accepted.