4 ms·

Very good point. Trying to think this through. I think community source should be accessible and usable outside the community. A community license should have

Very good point. Trying to think this through. I think community source should be accessible and usable outside the community. A community license should have a provision for paid use by corporations. If Microsoft wants to use it that is fine - if they pay. But if Microsoft wants to fork things, to me that is predatory. If I can't fork windows, why should they be able to fork community software? If they argue that people should pay for their products, it just seems fair to me that they should not get community products for free. I guess the concept is playing by the same rules?

ryao 1y ago
> I think community source should be accessible and usable outside the community. A community license should have a provision for paid use by corporations. If Microsoft wants to use it that is fine - if they pay. That violates the first clause of the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd It probably violates 5 and 6 too. > But if Microsoft wants to fork things, to me that is predatory. If I can't fork windows, why should they be able to fork community software? If they argue that people should pay for their products, it just seems fair to me that they should not get community products for free. Windows is not open source software.
- bornfreddy 1y ago
  Maybe the open source definition needs to change, or it is time to find a better way of protecting community software? This one is clearly (in some ways) not working.
  - aleph_minus_one 1y ago
    > Maybe the open source definition needs to change Maybe you rather don't actually want your software to be open source. Maybe you rather want your software to be under some copyleft license. Maybe you want to use an OSS license that is inconvenient for cloud providers (while still being an open source license) like the AGPL. Choose wisely.
- starkparker 1y ago
  the OSCL turned 18 years old a month ago. maybe things have changed enough since then to validate revisiting it. OSI is too busy trying to come up with an equally mid (at best) OSAID for another thing thing that corporations already don't and won't care about following, so I don't expect them to prioritize it even if it got raised
  - pabs3 1y ago
    https://openhub.net/licenses/OSCL-C https://openhub.net/licenses/OSCL-C
daedrdev 1y ago
I think one of the most important parts of open source is that it's available to even those you don't like. I simply do not get this corporate hate. Corporations and individuals can both use it for good and bad. A company might use open source to make a pacemaker to save lives or world improving research, or it might be Facebook and sell personal data.
tough 1y ago
AGPL tries to solve this

ryao 1y ago

> I think community source should be accessible and usable outside the community. A community license should have a provision for paid use by corporations. If Microsoft wants to use it that is fine - if they pay. That violates the first clause of the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd It probably violates 5 and 6 too. > But if Microsoft wants to fork things, to me that is predatory. If I can't fork windows, why should they be able to fork community software? If they argue that people should pay for their products, it just seems fair to me that they should not get community products for free. Windows is not open source software.

bornfreddy 1y ago
Maybe the open source definition needs to change, or it is time to find a better way of protecting community software? This one is clearly (in some ways) not working.
- aleph_minus_one 1y ago
  > Maybe the open source definition needs to change Maybe you rather don't actually want your software to be open source. Maybe you rather want your software to be under some copyleft license. Maybe you want to use an OSS license that is inconvenient for cloud providers (while still being an open source license) like the AGPL. Choose wisely.
starkparker 1y ago
the OSCL turned 18 years old a month ago. maybe things have changed enough since then to validate revisiting it. OSI is too busy trying to come up with an equally mid (at best) OSAID for another thing thing that corporations already don't and won't care about following, so I don't expect them to prioritize it even if it got raised
- pabs3 1y ago
  https://openhub.net/licenses/OSCL-C https://openhub.net/licenses/OSCL-C

daedrdev 1y ago

I think one of the most important parts of open source is that it's available to even those you don't like. I simply do not get this corporate hate. Corporations and individuals can both use it for good and bad. A company might use open source to make a pacemaker to save lives or world improving research, or it might be Facebook and sell personal data.

tough 1y ago

AGPL tries to solve this