4 ms·
Do you really think this is a good faith offer? It is just extortion, at least the AGPLv3 applies to the AGPLv3 software you're using ONLY.
by rany_ 3y ago
Do you really think this is a good faith offer? It is just extortion, at least the AGPLv3 applies to the AGPLv3 software you're using ONLY.
- rakoo 3y agoThis is extortion if you want to not share back. For Libre software maximalists, this is a good thing: considering you can't do anything without others, it is only normal that you share what you do with others.
- notpushkin 3y agoI do think that when the shared code scope is limited correctly, this is a good faith offer. For example, if you offer my product under SSPL as a service, I would expect that you share: - all your changes to the product - all infrastructure code you use to deploy the product for your customers - all billing code you use to bill for the product But I would not expect you to release code for e. g. services based on other products (open source or otherwise), or your whole billing stack, or your internal services you use for customer support for example. Just the code that you use with my particular product. Now, SSPL is a bad license for numerous reasons (many of the concerns in the OP article are valid!) and this is why I've decided against it on my project [1], but I think the basic premise of it is completely valid. [1]: https://lunni.dev/ https://lunni.dev/, licensed AGPL-3.0
- rany_ 3y agoI think the bigger issue is that you'll basically be at the mercy of the courts on how far you need to go with it. The scope isn't well defined IMO and it really couldn't be. Do I need to open source components that I don't have any control over and are proprietary? The questions are endless...
- notpushkin 3y agoYeah, that's part of the problem, too. Although it's also a problem with GPL and the likes: you can't integrate closed-source components from third parties with GPL software.