"yes, we love open source, but we don't know how to make money out of Amazon so we want it not to be open source but pretend it is"

The end of the story seems to be that it's just not possible to make an open source license significantly better than the AGPL for now because there's always potential loopholes when trying to define online stuff. Either you adapt your business model to open source, or do what MongoDB is trying to do and adapt the idea of open source to your business model - which the OSI finds unacceptable
lists.opensource.org/pipermail
lists.opensource.org/pipermail

@espectalll It was one of the big stories of last year, but Commons Clause is not really an open source license. I think they submitted it to OSI and it was rejected.

Also I'm not a copyright lawyer but my interpretation is that with copyleft licenses you can grant extra permissions as an addition to the license but I don't think you can add restrictions which conflict with the four freedoms. Commons clause tries to do that.

@bob I know perfectly well about Commons, it's SSPL the one I didn't know anything about

@[email protected] @espectalll Commons Clause is essentially trying to create a backdoor for corporate interests to exfiltrate projects from FOSS and make them proprietary.

@espectalll At first few glances, this doesn't seem like a bad thing? Just asserting copyleft harder.

@anjum The problem is how you actually make that copyleft. You can't just set specific terms by purpose, trying to keep it all copyleft seems to always leave loopholes (you can always run code in more convoluted ways that get out of a definition), and to get out of that issue you would have to include software that's not directly related to get copylefted

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

mstdn.io is one of the instance in the fediverse. We're an open-minded generalistic instance. Learn more here!