43 ms·

What an offensive, restrictive, and anti-free software license! Too bad - this might have otherwise been a useful piece of software. The current license renders

What an offensive, restrictive, and anti-free software license! Too bad - this might have otherwise been a useful piece of software. The current license renders it toxic.

logn 12y ago
The GNU licenses are arguably the definition of free software. More permissive licensing just gives you the freedom to make software non-free. That's also offered for this project, but as a paid privilege.
sciurus 12y ago
To those curious, the license is the GNU Affero General Public License version 3.
- rkowalick 12y ago
  It is a very open-source unfriendly modification of the AGPLv3 license.
  - logn 12y ago
    The modifications (available to paying licensees) are designed to let this project be useful to those running scraping SaaS's. It lets them hook this into their proprietary infrastructures without GPL'ing their whole stack. Revisions/additions to the project itself need to be licensed as AGPL but the rest can remain proprietary. The AGPLv3 license stands on its own without the modifications (they're optional). It's essentially a dual licensing option. There are a limited number of ways to do open source and make a living at it. And given that I am in business independently with no investors, I have not many other options. The one path I've ruled out, at least for now, is BSD-style licensing, as that just allows SaaS operators to leverage my work, deny users freedom, and also not pay me for my time to help their commercial projects.
    - sireat 12y ago
      Ahh, the Peanut Butter Hula Hoops crazy licence: http://www.billthelizard.com/2012/05/which-open-source-license.html http://www.billthelizard.com/2012/05/which-open-source-licen... The more I think about it the more I like this dual licencing setup which seems a realistic way to ensure those working on OS get paid. It lets everyone experimenting enjoy the code, whether they are a destitute student or an aspiring startup. Meanwhile, if you are someone who wants to actually make money from this AND want to hide your own code, you've got to pay the piper. Otherwise you end up in BSD land (or is it MIT land) where everyone takes from your project and give nothing back.
Flimm 12y ago
It is not unfree or anti-free at all. You can use and copy it and modify it and share it, unlike proprietary software.

What an offensive, restrictive, and anti-free software license! Too bad - this might have otherwise been a useful piece of software. The current license renders it toxic.

logn 12y ago

The GNU licenses are arguably the definition of free software. More permissive licensing just gives you the freedom to make software non-free. That's also offered for this project, but as a paid privilege.

sciurus 12y ago

To those curious, the license is the GNU Affero General Public License version 3.

rkowalick 12y ago
It is a very open-source unfriendly modification of the AGPLv3 license.
- logn 12y ago
  The modifications (available to paying licensees) are designed to let this project be useful to those running scraping SaaS's. It lets them hook this into their proprietary infrastructures without GPL'ing their whole stack. Revisions/additions to the project itself need to be licensed as AGPL but the rest can remain proprietary. The AGPLv3 license stands on its own without the modifications (they're optional). It's essentially a dual licensing option. There are a limited number of ways to do open source and make a living at it. And given that I am in business independently with no investors, I have not many other options. The one path I've ruled out, at least for now, is BSD-style licensing, as that just allows SaaS operators to leverage my work, deny users freedom, and also not pay me for my time to help their commercial projects.
  - sireat 12y ago
    Ahh, the Peanut Butter Hula Hoops crazy licence: http://www.billthelizard.com/2012/05/which-open-source-license.html http://www.billthelizard.com/2012/05/which-open-source-licen... The more I think about it the more I like this dual licencing setup which seems a realistic way to ensure those working on OS get paid. It lets everyone experimenting enjoy the code, whether they are a destitute student or an aspiring startup. Meanwhile, if you are someone who wants to actually make money from this AND want to hide your own code, you've got to pay the piper. Otherwise you end up in BSD land (or is it MIT land) where everyone takes from your project and give nothing back.

Flimm 12y ago

It is not unfree or anti-free at all. You can use and copy it and modify it and share it, unlike proprietary software.