4 ms·

> They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider. This is an overly negative take. At the end of the day, they are still providing software

> They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider. This is an overly negative take. At the end of the day, they are still providing software and the source code free to use for practically every purpose except directly competing with them. That's still altruistic while also being sensible in the real world rather than an ideal.

foxglacier 1y ago
Not for practically every purpose. It's a blog platform to be used by services that provide blog hosting, just like his own business does, so any use of it would be directly competing with him. From TFA, he never wanted people to actually use it, just to look at the source code.
passthejoe 1y ago
The license disallows use of the software for what it is intended: setting up a multi-user blogging system.
- kelnos 1y ago
  No, the license disallows use of the software for seeing up a multi-user blogging system as a paid service. You might say, "well wouldn't that be most of what people might want to do with it?" And you might be right, but so what? No one is entitled to build their business on the back of someone else's work, not without their permission anyway. That certainly makes software like this no longer Free Software. But I'm not religious about it, and maybe that's ok sometimes. (It also runs afoul of several parts of the OSI Open Source Definition, but maybe that's ok too.)
  - jwitthuhn 1y ago
    Not "as a paid service" just "as a service". The license does not allow me to stand up a Bear instance and let people blog on it for free.
  - happymellon 1y ago
    > No, the license disallows use of the software for seeing up a multi-user blogging system as a paid service This is incorrect. https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/master/LICEN... > You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality. It does not make the distinction around a financial transaction.

foxglacier 1y ago

Not for practically every purpose. It's a blog platform to be used by services that provide blog hosting, just like his own business does, so any use of it would be directly competing with him. From TFA, he never wanted people to actually use it, just to look at the source code.

passthejoe 1y ago

The license disallows use of the software for what it is intended: setting up a multi-user blogging system.

kelnos 1y ago
No, the license disallows use of the software for seeing up a multi-user blogging system as a paid service. You might say, "well wouldn't that be most of what people might want to do with it?" And you might be right, but so what? No one is entitled to build their business on the back of someone else's work, not without their permission anyway. That certainly makes software like this no longer Free Software. But I'm not religious about it, and maybe that's ok sometimes. (It also runs afoul of several parts of the OSI Open Source Definition, but maybe that's ok too.)
- jwitthuhn 1y ago
  Not "as a paid service" just "as a service". The license does not allow me to stand up a Bear instance and let people blog on it for free.
- happymellon 1y ago
  > No, the license disallows use of the software for seeing up a multi-user blogging system as a paid service This is incorrect. https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/master/LICEN... > You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality. It does not make the distinction around a financial transaction.