4 ms·

> For RSALv2 "Software" and "Modified" is not "software" and "modified". It's capitalized because it refers to terms that are provided in "Definitions" section.

by growse 3y ago

> For RSALv2 "Software" and "Modified" is not "software" and "modified". It's capitalized because it refers to terms that are provided in "Definitions" section. From there you have: Notice how they deliberately don't define "service" or at any point specify "the functionality of the Software". > It's because open source has problem with cloud where big players not involved with the project cash out on it by simply selling it as is (as managed service) and by doing it they also automatically strip original authors from any chances of competing. This is, quite obviously, highly subjective. I (and many others) don't think there's a problem, VC-backed companies think there's a problem. Go ask (for example) the Linux, Postgres, Memcached or any of the CNCF folk about whether there's a problem. > It's not targeted at users. It's targeted at providers. Providers are also users. > OSI doesn't have (or will ever have?) licenses that are compatible with this new era of cloud providers because it equates end user with cloud provider. This is wrong and people will have to invent new adjectives/nouns to describe what they mean by open source contribution + not allowed to leech on us (compete with us through cloud offering without giving us a cut). It's also pretty insulting to the thousands (millions?) of open source projects that choose to adopt an OSI-approved open source licence to suggest that they somehow don't understand what they're doing or are "doing it wrong". If you're worried about not getting a cut when cloud providers use your software to make money.... don't release it under an open source licence. This isn't hard?

mirekrusin 3y ago
> If you're worried about not getting a cut when cloud providers use your software to make money.... don't release it under an open source licence. This isn't hard? End use != provide. Open code, open contributions, open non-commercial applications matter. It's a simple 2 dimensional space on: Usage(Use, Provide) Setting(Commercial, Non Profit) With single false cell on Provide & Commercial. Copyright holders should be allowed to choose this option. I don't see why the whole fuss about why not. If you don't want to use it on your copyrighted work, don't. It doesn't mean others are not allowed, does it?
- growse 3y ago
  You seem extraordinarily sure that the definition of "provider" or "provides a service" (or even "end user") is universally and objectively understood by all, and yet you can't point me to the place where Redis (or anyone else) spells this out. Curious. > Copyright holders should be allowed to choose this option. I don't see why the whole fuss about why not. I agree. As long as they define their terms. Redis haven't. That's the point.
  - mirekrusin 3y ago
    It's clearly stated in Definitions section (for Modify, Modified, or Modification). It draws clear distinction between merely USING the software in its original form and ADAPTATION or DERIVATION that requires copyright permission. It plainly, simply and directly implies that using it is fine and distributing modifications is not. It also says that unmodified version is fine to distribute commercially ("... other than making an exact copy").

by growse 3y ago

mirekrusin 3y ago

> If you're worried about not getting a cut when cloud providers use your software to make money.... don't release it under an open source licence. This isn't hard? End use != provide. Open code, open contributions, open non-commercial applications matter. It's a simple 2 dimensional space on: Usage(Use, Provide) Setting(Commercial, Non Profit) With single false cell on Provide & Commercial. Copyright holders should be allowed to choose this option. I don't see why the whole fuss about why not. If you don't want to use it on your copyrighted work, don't. It doesn't mean others are not allowed, does it?

growse 3y ago
You seem extraordinarily sure that the definition of "provider" or "provides a service" (or even "end user") is universally and objectively understood by all, and yet you can't point me to the place where Redis (or anyone else) spells this out. Curious. > Copyright holders should be allowed to choose this option. I don't see why the whole fuss about why not. I agree. As long as they define their terms. Redis haven't. That's the point.
- mirekrusin 3y ago
  It's clearly stated in Definitions section (for Modify, Modified, or Modification). It draws clear distinction between merely USING the software in its original form and ADAPTATION or DERIVATION that requires copyright permission. It plainly, simply and directly implies that using it is fine and distributing modifications is not. It also says that unmodified version is fine to distribute commercially ("... other than making an exact copy").