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. Thatβs even before the βsubstantialβ requirement and other vagueness therein.
Conversation
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
1
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
1
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
2
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.
2
1
2
That is because the tool created by Free Software advocate was co-opted and corrupted by for-profit companies. (Personal opinion).
1
5
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"
2
1
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.
2
4
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.
1
1
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.
1
5
Free Software movement sees the restrictions in the GPL as being justified by being for the greater good. The advocates of non-commercial licenses see things the same way with their restrictive licenses. There will be other restrictive license movements based on other values.
Some people don't want their software being used as part of waging war, policing, etc. Going to be lots of license restrictions and attempts to push them. GPL created the conditions for people to see this as something that makes sense. Most projects moving to these were GPL.
1
3
Non-commercial licenses, etc. are the evolution of what people wanted from GPL and why they were using it. Vast majority of developers using it were doing it in a misguided attempt to get sustainability and contributions back to the project. Includes biggest adopters like Linux.
1
1
Show replies