3 ms·

If you want a closed source license, use a closed source license. Nothing wrong with that; many companies do that. This particular license combination just crea

If you want a closed source license, use a closed source license. Nothing wrong with that; many companies do that. This particular license combination just creates the illusion of openness without most of the benefits for would be contributors. > But there simply has to be control and restrictions over the use of software for it to be commercially viable (in almost every case). That's the view of a single company that wants exclusive control, not the view of a company that wants to create a healthy OSS community. Healthy OSS communities tend to have more than one company involved and a diverse group of contributors. That's why OSS licenses exist that protect their mutual rights. It's a necessary compromise to prevent any contributor having that kind of power and allow them to collaborate and share code. This is the opposite; and it cannot create a healthy OSS community. Which raises the question of what the point is of using this kind of licensing? I don't think it's about soliciting outside contributions as this kind of actively discourages that. And why else would you open source something?

Vegenoid 2y ago
> And why else would you open source something? It's nice to know when you're building something on top of other tech that if you need to, you can dig in to the code and fix issues. If the company folds, and you rely on their tech, you can continue to maintain it. If you want to look at their code to see how something works, you can do that. If you want to hire somebody to do a security audit on it, you can do that. If you're picking software to build with, having the source code be open or available is a positive. And there's no downside to companies doing this. I see this happening frequently: people getting upset at companies that do some kind of sort-of-open-source/source-available thing, because they think the company is just out to get their free labor. If you don't want to give them free labor, then don't. And besides, they are using AGPL! OSI-approved! What more can you ask for? That the company either dissolve completely, so that their software may become a garden on their grave, tended to by a community of free engineers, or else must remain cloistered and strictly closed? You don't need to celebrate it, but I just don't see the point in pooh-poohing this.

Vegenoid 2y ago

> And why else would you open source something? It's nice to know when you're building something on top of other tech that if you need to, you can dig in to the code and fix issues. If the company folds, and you rely on their tech, you can continue to maintain it. If you want to look at their code to see how something works, you can do that. If you want to hire somebody to do a security audit on it, you can do that. If you're picking software to build with, having the source code be open or available is a positive. And there's no downside to companies doing this. I see this happening frequently: people getting upset at companies that do some kind of sort-of-open-source/source-available thing, because they think the company is just out to get their free labor. If you don't want to give them free labor, then don't. And besides, they are using AGPL! OSI-approved! What more can you ask for? That the company either dissolve completely, so that their software may become a garden on their grave, tended to by a community of free engineers, or else must remain cloistered and strictly closed? You don't need to celebrate it, but I just don't see the point in pooh-poohing this.