4 ms·

I think it is a bit odd that they ranted about SSPL without mentioning the AGPL for people that want to maintain users’ freedom without the complication of bein

I think it is a bit odd that they ranted about SSPL without mentioning the AGPL for people that want to maintain users’ freedom without the complication of being (almost?) impossible to comply with. It’s almost as if they really just want to use free software without giving back.

cmeacham98 3y ago
The page literally recommends the use of a copyleft license: > Use copyleft licenses to ensure companies will give back to the community: "if you modify our code, share it with the community".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- andybak 3y ago
  Yes but specifically mentioning AGPL would have been extremely relevant. It's something that often feels like a thing only licence geeks widely understand.
  - cmeacham98 3y ago
    Maybe, but accusing the author of malicious intent and that they "want to use free software without giving back" because they didn't recommend a specific copyleft license is ridiculous.
    - andybak 3y ago
      True. There's a bit of a chorus of "So you want to steal people's lovely open source?" in this thread in response to anyone who has doubts that SSPL is the right way to do it. It's fine to disagree but at least add something on top of the points in the linked article.
- trelane 3y ago
  The article is wrong. Non-Affero GPL would not prevent a networked services company from keeping modifications proprietary, as there would be no distribution to activate the license. Use over a network triggering license activation is the reason the Affero version exists. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#UnreleasedMods https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#UnreleasedMods
BoorishBears 3y ago
AGPL isn't a fix for the Big 3 co-opting projects. Amazon doesn't need to modify your software to provide a differentiated offering: they'll build a bunch of platform-specific, closed source, "secret sauce" to scale it on their infrastructure only and sell that. (And for bonus points: their secret sauce may or may not affect interop, creating an awkward rift in the capabilities between their managed offering of your software.)
- trelane 3y ago
  Being able to build a competitor is always an option, no matter the license. It's a question of what they use as the starting point.

cmeacham98 3y ago

The page literally recommends the use of a copyleft license: > Use copyleft licenses to ensure companies will give back to the community: "if you modify our code, share it with the community".

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
andybak 3y ago
Yes but specifically mentioning AGPL would have been extremely relevant. It's something that often feels like a thing only licence geeks widely understand.
- cmeacham98 3y ago
  Maybe, but accusing the author of malicious intent and that they "want to use free software without giving back" because they didn't recommend a specific copyleft license is ridiculous.
  - andybak 3y ago
    True. There's a bit of a chorus of "So you want to steal people's lovely open source?" in this thread in response to anyone who has doubts that SSPL is the right way to do it. It's fine to disagree but at least add something on top of the points in the linked article.
trelane 3y ago
The article is wrong. Non-Affero GPL would not prevent a networked services company from keeping modifications proprietary, as there would be no distribution to activate the license. Use over a network triggering license activation is the reason the Affero version exists. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#UnreleasedMods https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#UnreleasedMods

BoorishBears 3y ago

AGPL isn't a fix for the Big 3 co-opting projects. Amazon doesn't need to modify your software to provide a differentiated offering: they'll build a bunch of platform-specific, closed source, "secret sauce" to scale it on their infrastructure only and sell that. (And for bonus points: their secret sauce may or may not affect interop, creating an awkward rift in the capabilities between their managed offering of your software.)

trelane 3y ago
Being able to build a competitor is always an option, no matter the license. It's a question of what they use as the starting point.