3 ms·

Your comment makes no sense: first it attacks “open source” with derogatory language, then it strongly recommends using a certain open-source license, and then

by kragen 2y ago

Your comment makes no sense: first it attacks “open source” with derogatory language, then it strongly recommends using a certain open-source license, and then it returns to attacking “open source” with derogatory language pasted from a clueless blog post by a plonker renowned for his clueless rants.

Dylan16807 2y ago
It makes sense when you add the fact that 99% of open source is not AGPL. Criticizing "open source" is slight hyperbole.
- kragen 2y ago
  If there's something wrong with open source software as a class, that thing would almost certainly have to be wrong with the AGPL as well, since it's a central example of the class of open source licenses, and, contrary to your comment, one of the most popular ones. If it's an exception to the generalization, you need to explain why. So it isn't "slight hyperbole". It's utter incoherence.
  - Dylan16807 2y ago
    If everyone in a classroom but one makes the same mistake, it's not incoherent to say the class screwed up. And they half explained why AGPL is different, with the other half not being hard to infer. It's the only one that isn't donating code to huge companies, because they can't use it on their servers without sharing back. Give a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt that they were saying something coherent. Please. (Their other later comment says they considers AGPL to be in a different category from "open source", and even if that's wrong it actually makes the argument more coherent. They're explicitly criticizing open source licenses other than AGPL.) Also 1% was just a rough guess but this survey says I was exactly right: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on... If the number has changed in the last few years I'm open to updates.
matheusmoreira 2y ago
Free software and open source software are not the same. AGPLv3 is not an open source license, it is the strongest copyleft free software license available at this point in time. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html And it's hard to disagree with the clueless guy when what he says is happening keeps happening. https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4
- kragen 2y ago
  The AGPL v3 has been certified as an official open source license by the OSI for 16 years: https://opensource.org/license/agpl-v3 https://opensource.org/license/agpl-v3 It's not that no begging ever happens. It's just that you're saying that "open source is just the transfer of property and capital" and it isn't.
  - matheusmoreira 2y ago
    > certified as an official open source license by the OSI That just means open source sees itself as a superset of free software. The reality is they have completely different and incompatible values. They are not the same. > you're saying that "open source is just the transfer of property and capital" and it isn't Open source licenses are essentially payment in exposure. Well meaning developers are literally giving away their intellectual property in exchange for a copyright notice with their name on it being included in a billion dollar corporation's product. To me that makes no sense whatsoever. The results are predictable and I've seen plenty of people get disillusioned when the reality of it sinks in. Free software licenses at least attempt to maximize the public good of the software being given away. This actually generates some leverage for the developer.
    - kragen 2y ago

by kragen 2y ago

Dylan16807 2y ago

It makes sense when you add the fact that 99% of open source is not AGPL. Criticizing "open source" is slight hyperbole.

kragen 2y ago
If there's something wrong with open source software as a class, that thing would almost certainly have to be wrong with the AGPL as well, since it's a central example of the class of open source licenses, and, contrary to your comment, one of the most popular ones. If it's an exception to the generalization, you need to explain why. So it isn't "slight hyperbole". It's utter incoherence.
- Dylan16807 2y ago
  If everyone in a classroom but one makes the same mistake, it's not incoherent to say the class screwed up. And they half explained why AGPL is different, with the other half not being hard to infer. It's the only one that isn't donating code to huge companies, because they can't use it on their servers without sharing back. Give a tiny bit of benefit of the doubt that they were saying something coherent. Please. (Their other later comment says they considers AGPL to be in a different category from "open source", and even if that's wrong it actually makes the argument more coherent. They're explicitly criticizing open source licenses other than AGPL.) Also 1% was just a rough guess but this survey says I was exactly right: https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on-github-com/ https://github.blog/open-source/open-source-license-usage-on... If the number has changed in the last few years I'm open to updates.

matheusmoreira 2y ago

Free software and open source software are not the same. AGPLv3 is not an open source license, it is the strongest copyleft free software license available at this point in time. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html And it's hard to disagree with the clueless guy when what he says is happening keeps happening. https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178803129602500 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://twitter.com/FFmpeg/status/1775178805704888726 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4 https://trac.ffmpeg.org/ticket/10341#comment:4

kragen 2y ago
The AGPL v3 has been certified as an official open source license by the OSI for 16 years: https://opensource.org/license/agpl-v3 https://opensource.org/license/agpl-v3 It's not that no begging ever happens. It's just that you're saying that "open source is just the transfer of property and capital" and it isn't.
- matheusmoreira 2y ago
  > certified as an official open source license by the OSI That just means open source sees itself as a superset of free software. The reality is they have completely different and incompatible values. They are not the same. > you're saying that "open source is just the transfer of property and capital" and it isn't Open source licenses are essentially payment in exposure. Well meaning developers are literally giving away their intellectual property in exchange for a copyright notice with their name on it being included in a billion dollar corporation's product. To me that makes no sense whatsoever. The results are predictable and I've seen plenty of people get disillusioned when the reality of it sinks in. Free software licenses at least attempt to maximize the public good of the software being given away. This actually generates some leverage for the developer.
  - kragen 2y ago