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
Isn't that the goal?
Were would Linux be if companies were using modified proprietary versions instead of contributing?
Imagine your well being proprietary, your average VPS or dedicated server running a proprietary version, etc.
1
Giving a tarball with sources to users is not contributing to a project or giving back to it. It has little to do with it. It's fundamentally not what the GPL requires or how software development works.
GPL also forbids plenty of open source things not just closed source ones.
So what is a good license for publishing my source code and avoiding the risk of someone improving it and releasing it as closed source?
1
In my mind, there isn't one that is worth the trouble. The best you can get is strong copyleft, but there will always be bad players that won't comply. When that happens, what will you do? Sue them until they send you a tarball? Who's going to spend time merging the good parts?
1
1
Show replies
GPLv2 (Linux kernel) forbids mixing it with GPLv3 code and it's why you can't have ZFS in the Linux kernel aside from via a dubious out-of-tree module, etc. It's immensely complicated and different projects/people have much different takes on what's allowed and what's not legal.
1