4 ms·

Skimming your links, it seems you target the AGPL, but you take issue with CLAs. You should be vocal against CLAs, not the AGPL. CLAs with any license is a ris

by jraph 1y ago

Skimming your links, it seems you target the AGPL, but you take issue with CLAs. You should be vocal against CLAs, not the AGPL. CLAs with any license is a risk of seeing the code closed up.

ezekg 1y ago
[flagged]
- jraph 1y ago
  People saying wrong things about the AGPL isn't an AGPL problem, it's an issue of people saying wrong things. AGPL allows competition. Any free software license does. It's rule 0 of free software. > it's chosen to to be a non-compete. Well, too bad for them, because I can still fork this AGPL software and compete. So what's the issue? The issue would be for contributors contributing for to this code under CLA seeing their contributions closed up. If that's not your thing, don't contribute to software under such CLA. I avoid it myself.
  - ezekg 1y ago
    > Well, too bad for them, because I can still fork this AGPL software and compete. So what's the issue? No legal department will ever allow it due to the FUD. That's the whole fucking point.
    - jraph 1y ago
      Sorry, but I won't cry for corps big enough to have legal departments because they elected not to benefit from my software. They have too much power for me to worry about looking to accommodate them and their fantasy. I don't mind them not using my code. They are doing themselves here. They have the human power to rebuild it anyway and I actually believe it should cost them. it's actually them who are spreading the FUD, because they don't like the AGPL. Meanwhile, my goal of providing software freedom to my users is fulfilled.
      - ezekg 1y ago
        My point is less about the AGPL license itself and more about the people who choose it. If the OSI came out and made a statement on the ambiguities in the AGPL, and cleared the FUD in such a way that all companies agreed and could reference it, I'd wager that the AGPL would over time become much, much less popular for commercial open source. But I'd wager that they won't do that, because they win when COSS wins. But if they did, we'd likely even see a move towards non-OSS licenses, ones that are clear as to their intent and rules -- rather than relying on ambiguity -- because there would no longer be an OSI-approved license that businesses could use to have their cake and eat it too. Very few COSS business/startup/w/e right now are choosing AGPL for altruistic reasons. This thread and every other COSS licensing thread here are evidence of that. Few of them care about software freedoms, or know why they chose the AGPL. They have a playbook that says AGPL lets them take advantage of the open source distribution flywheel, while largely protecting them from the risks associated with commercial open source, i.e. competition. They choose AGPL for this, not because it's the best license for users. I honestly don't get how people don't see the deception under the AGPL right now.
        jraph 1y ago
        This point of view is new to me to be honest. Let's say I don't care about the intent of people choosing the AGPL (I do, I wish people did stuff for altruistic reasons, but the economical system in which we live makes it so we can't rely on this). You say people are choosing the AGPL because they think it lets them do effectively source-available while benefiting from open source washing. Fine. I don't like this. But the effect of this for me is that we actually get actual free software. What's so bad with this? I've reread your second text and didn't find what's actually bad with the AGPL. Now, I wish all the FUD around AGPL was cleared; the FUD is what's bad, but I don't wan't to wait for this to happen before picking the AGPL for my software.
        ezekg 1y ago
        > What's so bad with this? It's lying. It's an open source project and a business model built on deceit. I guess I care about clear rules, clear intentions, and I care about integrity above all. The AGPL is ambiguity; unclear rules, veiled intentions. And these same people will relicense without a thought, too. I think we should care about these things, otherwise we repeat history over and over again.
    - lexicality 1y ago
      The AGPL is supposed to increase user freedom, not the legal department's freedom. The FSF have never cared even slightly about corporations being happy. Who cares if Google can't enrich themselves further? The point is to protect the users who are free to fork / host the software themselves.
      - ranger_danger 1y ago
        I think one of the big problems is that there are different definitions of freedom, and not everyone agrees. freedom TO vs freedom FROM
- throwaway38477 1y ago
  > In COSS, it's almost never chosen for altruistic reasons, it's chosen to to be a non-compete Seems like the "COSS" grifters are the problem, not the AGPL or the average person who chooses AGPL.

by jraph 1y ago

Skimming your links, it seems you target the AGPL, but you take issue with CLAs. You should be vocal against CLAs, not the AGPL. CLAs with any license is a risk of seeing the code closed up.

ezekg 1y ago

[flagged]

jraph 1y ago
People saying wrong things about the AGPL isn't an AGPL problem, it's an issue of people saying wrong things. AGPL allows competition. Any free software license does. It's rule 0 of free software. > it's chosen to to be a non-compete. Well, too bad for them, because I can still fork this AGPL software and compete. So what's the issue? The issue would be for contributors contributing for to this code under CLA seeing their contributions closed up. If that's not your thing, don't contribute to software under such CLA. I avoid it myself.
- ezekg 1y ago
  > Well, too bad for them, because I can still fork this AGPL software and compete. So what's the issue? No legal department will ever allow it due to the FUD. That's the whole fucking point.
  - jraph 1y ago
    Sorry, but I won't cry for corps big enough to have legal departments because they elected not to benefit from my software. They have too much power for me to worry about looking to accommodate them and their fantasy. I don't mind them not using my code. They are doing themselves here. They have the human power to rebuild it anyway and I actually believe it should cost them. it's actually them who are spreading the FUD, because they don't like the AGPL. Meanwhile, my goal of providing software freedom to my users is fulfilled.
    - ezekg 1y ago
      My point is less about the AGPL license itself and more about the people who choose it. If the OSI came out and made a statement on the ambiguities in the AGPL, and cleared the FUD in such a way that all companies agreed and could reference it, I'd wager that the AGPL would over time become much, much less popular for commercial open source. But I'd wager that they won't do that, because they win when COSS wins. But if they did, we'd likely even see a move towards non-OSS licenses, ones that are clear as to their intent and rules -- rather than relying on ambiguity -- because there would no longer be an OSI-approved license that businesses could use to have their cake and eat it too. Very few COSS business/startup/w/e right now are choosing AGPL for altruistic reasons. This thread and every other COSS licensing thread here are evidence of that. Few of them care about software freedoms, or know why they chose the AGPL. They have a playbook that says AGPL lets them take advantage of the open source distribution flywheel, while largely protecting them from the risks associated with commercial open source, i.e. competition. They choose AGPL for this, not because it's the best license for users. I honestly don't get how people don't see the deception under the AGPL right now.
      - jraph 1y ago
        This point of view is new to me to be honest. Let's say I don't care about the intent of people choosing the AGPL (I do, I wish people did stuff for altruistic reasons, but the economical system in which we live makes it so we can't rely on this). You say people are choosing the AGPL because they think it lets them do effectively source-available while benefiting from open source washing. Fine. I don't like this. But the effect of this for me is that we actually get actual free software. What's so bad with this? I've reread your second text and didn't find what's actually bad with the AGPL. Now, I wish all the FUD around AGPL was cleared; the FUD is what's bad, but I don't wan't to wait for this to happen before picking the AGPL for my software.
        ezekg 1y ago
        > What's so bad with this? It's lying. It's an open source project and a business model built on deceit. I guess I care about clear rules, clear intentions, and I care about integrity above all. The AGPL is ambiguity; unclear rules, veiled intentions. And these same people will relicense without a thought, too. I think we should care about these things, otherwise we repeat history over and over again.
  - lexicality 1y ago
    The AGPL is supposed to increase user freedom, not the legal department's freedom. The FSF have never cared even slightly about corporations being happy. Who cares if Google can't enrich themselves further? The point is to protect the users who are free to fork / host the software themselves.
    - ranger_danger 1y ago
      I think one of the big problems is that there are different definitions of freedom, and not everyone agrees. freedom TO vs freedom FROM
throwaway38477 1y ago
> In COSS, it's almost never chosen for altruistic reasons, it's chosen to to be a non-compete Seems like the "COSS" grifters are the problem, not the AGPL or the average person who chooses AGPL.