Conversation

Personal opinion: the Commons Clause does damage to Free And #OpenSource Software communities, and it will continue to do so until

@getfossa

archives the GitHub project and adds a warning to the website about the hazards it brings.

Quote Tweet

Lunaticoin

@lunaticoin

Oct 10, 2021

Coldcard changed its firmware license from GPLv3 to MIT+Commons Clause. Considering @fsf and @OpenSourceOrg definitions, @COLDCARDwallet is not anymore #OpenSource, or is it? 1/ In this B-side of the spanish #L123's @nvk answers me that and much more bit.ly/L123B_Coldcard

Show this thread

2:13

4.3K views

Johnathan 𝚓𝚘𝚋𝚋𝚒𝚗𝚐 𝚝𝚑𝚎 𝚌𝚛𝚘𝚗𝚜 Lyman

Replying to

and

It seems strange to me that a license would explicitly say one could sell, then a couple of paragraphs later say one cannot. Seems like something where the courts would have a lot of room to interpret. That’s even before the “substantial” requirement and other vagueness therein.

Replying to

I went and read the terms of the Commons Clause, because I keep hearing about it. It appears to be designed explicitly to transition OSS projects away to a "source-available" licensing model. I guess it's easier to add a clause to an existing license instead of writing a new one

Replying to

What's particularly interesting is that it clearly states it is not an OSS license, and that it should be qualified as a "source-available license". The right to sell is restricted, but mostly if you sell the software as-is, similar to UI component libraries commercial licensing

Replying to

So while I would not advocate for the Commons Clause, I can understand where it fits. It's an alternative to AGPLv3 + dual licensing where you restrict the right to sell instead of making it such that competitors trying to use your code would have give away most of their code

Replying to

Because let's face it, even if AGPLv3 is an OSS license, when it's combined with dual licensing, it's literally a tool used to keep one company in the sole position of power - the one that can use the code any way they like and sell commercial licenses.

Replying to

That is because the tool created by Free Software advocate was co-opted and corrupted by for-profit companies. (Personal opinion).

sfconservancy.org

Toward Copyleft Equality for All

I would not have imagined even two years ago that expansion of copyleft would become such an issue of interest in software freedom licensing. Historically and for good reason, addition of new forms...

Replying to

I agree with you, AGPLv3 + dual-licensing really has nothing to do with the spirit of free software, it's really used as a tool to keep one company in a position where they can do more than their competitors with the code. It could honestly be considered "source-available"

Replying to

GPL is source available in the first place because it heavily restricts use and clearly doesn't meet their own requirements for 'Free Software'. The surrounding context doesn't determine which kind of license it is. Free Software movement is just a bunch of cognitive dissonance.

12:50 AM · Oct 11, 2021Twitter Web App

Replying to

It doesn't restrict use in any way. It just comes with obligations upon some triggering conditions (e.g, distribution, creating derivative works). But you're free to use the software any way you wish (as an end-user). You just need to give others the same freedom you were given.

Replying to

It does heavily restrict usage as an end user. The users of source code are developers, and it heavily restricts what they can do with it including mixing it with actual free software without the same usage restrictions. GPL is non-free software, based on their own definition.

Show replies

Replying to

Restrictive GPL licensing naturally turns into these non-commercial licenses. Saying some restrictions are good because you agree with the intent but other restrictions are bad because you don't agree with the intent doesn't change that it's heavily restricting usage either way.

Replying to

You are only "restricted" from making the software proprietary (i.e., not give others the permissions you were given).

Quote Tweet

Matt 'msw' Wilson

@_msw_

Aug 28, 2021

Replying to @wewegomb and @alyssarzg

The GPL is completely business friendly, so long as business objectives are compatible with Free Software objectives. The GPL has created virtually impossible-to-measure business value by unencumbering businesses, as software users, from the restrictions of proprietary licensing.

Show replies