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.
Conversation
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.
2
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
How does the GPL stop you from creating proprietary software products? You can license proprietary equivalents of GPL software for any components you need. If you can't afford to do that then you have a business problem not a license problem.
3
2
How about Free Software advocates stop bothering people for not producing software using their special non-free licenses with restrictions they consider acceptable? These non-commercial licenses are no less ethical or legitimate. GPL heavily restricts usage itself, in reality.
I believe in producing and using free software for practical and moral reasons. Others have different moral frameworks and needs than I do. I accept that different people have different perspectives but I reserve the right to share my own.
1
1
Okay, and I believe in not using restrictive software licenses like the GPL for practical and moral reasons. I also consider most of the Free Software movement to be terrible people in a cult of personality. Most important reason not to use GPL is to avoid attracting them.
1
1
Show replies
I would just like it if we could stop automatically giving "free software" the moral high ground. I advocate for "truly free" software where I don't wish to impose restrictions on the code I write. In fact, I celebrate and encourage usage of my code in commercial products 🍾