Conversation

Replying to

and

If someone is using GPL3 because they believe in the ideology behind it, then I don't think they would want to sell a license for creating a locked down device. You could use GPL3 to force companies to pay for a license for this case, but it's a tiny subset of commercial use.

Replying to

and

One "ideological" position is "if you're doing locked down proprietary stuff you should be heavily finding the folks who are creating free alternatives to it".

Replying to

and

Do Amazon's web services not qualify as heavily locked down proprietary stuff? My understanding is that it's one of the major reasons for the recent push for alternatives to OSI / FSF approved licenses. Some of the projects involved were using AGPL3 and weren't happy with it.

This Tweet was deleted by the Tweet author. Learn more

Replying to

and

Redis abandoned Commons Clause for their proprietary extensions and moved to Redis Source Available license.

zdnet.com

Redis Labs drops Commons Clause for a new license

Redis Labs has given up adding Commons Clause on top of the Apache license in favor of a new available-source code license: Redis Source Available License.

Replying to

and

I'm aware, but I didn't feel the additional move was relevant to the discussion and worth adding another tweet. I also didn't mention more examples because mentioning 2 of them gets the point across.

Replying to

and

... MongoDB isn't using Commons Clause either. They wrote a different license based on AGPLv3 called SSPL. MongoDB is now under SSPL version 1. Neo4j was using AGPLv3 + Commons Clause for their enterprise edition, but now they are not going to make the source available.

Replying to

Do you have an example where Commons Clause is still being used?

Replying to

and

It's not about the Commons Clause specifically but about projects moving to non-FSF / non-OSI approved licenses with clauses aimed at forcing service companies to pay for the software. Redis using an even stricter license than the Commons Clause is the entire point.

Replying to

and

Indeed, it is disappointing to me that AGPLv3 is being abandoned for these non-Free, non-Open-Source licenses. The confusing thing is that, as far as I know, none of the software in question was ever included in an AWS service in the first place. Literally none of it. 🤷‍♂️

Replying to

and

I replaced my tweet about that with links to their current licenses.

6:46 AM · Jun 9, 2019Twitter Web Client

Replying to

Cool! Sorry for being pedantic. I should probably have focused on the main point of your contribution to the discussion.