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
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.
1
You are only "restricted" from making the software proprietary (i.e., not give others the permissions you were given).
Quote Tweet
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.
2
1
It also restricts mixing it with lots of other open source software, prevents selling devices with an immutable root of trust even as an optional variant of a product, etc. It has a ton of usage restrictions. The users of source code are developers and that's who it restricts.
GPL itself is restricting usage so it's unable to protect against doing that because it does that itself. It is what it tries to protect people against: non-free software restricting usage. Copyleft is just another form of abusing a state enforced monopoly that isn't justified.
1
I think there are many ways to meet various design requirements of consumer electronics devices while still respecting the rights that I think the other of the device should be given.
2
5
Daniel hits on a key aspect that always bothered me: who the real "users" are. The GPL doesn't affect me as an end user, but it does affect me significantly as a developer, especially if my intent is to potentially create proprietary software products.
4
Show replies