[flagged]
Bear is now source-available
231–240 of 509 posts
Re: Bear is now source-available
#232Has the maintainer looked at fair source? [0] I believe it's superior to source-available (and open core), because it eventually becomes fully open source under DOSP [1], which is great for free and paid users, especially for a blog platform like Bear. There's an FCL [2] fair source license, which aligns pretty well with their current Bear Blog License (namely the non-compete and license key bits from the ELv2). All…
We use a BSL for our product (https://morphik.ai) and usually stay away from calling it anything. We'd just say "repo is public at: https://github.com/morphik-org/morphik-core". I like the term fair source, though.
Is it correct to assume that software than eventually becomes open under something like Apache or MIT is fair source? Or is there more subtlety to it?
Re: Bear is now source-available
#233[flagged]
Re: Bear is now source-available
#234Has the maintainer looked at fair source? [0] I believe it's superior to source-available (and open core), because it eventually becomes fully open source under DOSP [1], which is great for free and paid users, especially for a blog platform like Bear. There's an FCL [2] fair source license, which aligns pretty well with their current Bear Blog License (namely the non-compete and license key bits from the ELv2). All…
We use a BSL for our product ( https://morphik.ai ) and usually stay away from calling it anything. We'd just say "repo is public at: https://github.com/morphik-org/morphik-core ". I like the term fair source, though. Is it correct to assume that software than eventually becomes open under something like Apache or MIT is fair source? Or is there more subtlety to it?
> Is it correct to assume that software than eventually becomes open under something like Apache or MIT is fair source? Or is there more subtlety to it?
The concrete definition we came up with and published:
> Fair Source is an alternative to closed source, allowing you to safely share access to your core products. Fair Source Software (FSS):
> - is publicly available to read;
> - allows use, modification, and redistribution with minimal restrictions to protect the producer’s business model; and
> - undergoes delayed Open Source publication (DOSP).
Re: Bear is now source-available
#235Has the maintainer looked at fair source? [0] I believe it's superior to source-available (and open core), because it eventually becomes fully open source under DOSP [1], which is great for free and paid users, especially for a blog platform like Bear. There's an FCL [2] fair source license, which aligns pretty well with their current Bear Blog License (namely the non-compete and license key bits from the ELv2). All…
We use a BSL for our product ( https://morphik.ai ) and usually stay away from calling it anything. We'd just say "repo is public at: https://github.com/morphik-org/morphik-core ". I like the term fair source, though. Is it correct to assume that software than eventually becomes open under something like Apache or MIT is fair source? Or is there more subtlety to it?
[deleted]
Re: Bear is now source-available
#236Earlier quoted context omitted.
Skimming your links, it seems you target the AGPL, but you take issue with CLAs. You should be vocal against CLAs, not the AGPL. CLAs with any license is a risk of seeing the code closed up.
[flagged]
> In COSS, it's almost never chosen for altruistic reasons, it's chosen to to be a non-compete
Seems like the "COSS" grifters are the problem, not the AGPL or the average person who chooses AGPL.
Re: Bear is now source-available
#237> You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality. IANAL, but does the above limitation prevent users from hosting bear for their own (or your company’s own) needs? If so, doesn’t that defeat the whole reason why it’s MIT licensed. https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/master/LICEN...
People and companies can host it for personal/internal use.
People and companies cannot host it and offer it as a service to other people or companies.
Re: Bear is now source-available
#238Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shame on the people who recommend the AGPL to effectively be an OSI-approved source-available license. This is a grievance against the spirit of open source.
the corporations who disallow agpl only do so because they want to comply in a way that is against the spirit of open source. When I advocate for the agpl to prevent Amazon and Google using my software, it’s not because of who those companies are, but how they use it. If Amazon tomorrow turns around and open sources everything that is a derivative work of the code they ever used, I would be more than happy, even prou…
> the corporations who disallow agpl only do so because they want to comply in a way that is against the spirit of open source
believe it or not this is not actually true! the corporations who disallow agpl do so because their lawyers (correctly) tell them that agpl-licensed software has not been adequately tested in relevant courts of law, and that by including agpl-licensed software they are opening themselves up to unknown/unbounded legal liability/risk!
"the spirit of open source" has nothing to do with anything!
the more you know
Re: Bear is now source-available
#239As far as I understand it, the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd is that if Amazon can't make it one of their AWS offerings then it isn't true open source, and they'll get very upset at you if you claim it is. I'd like to see some recognition from this crowd of the "free-ride competition" problem as this author puts it. What Herman is doing is a service to us all, and we should find a term (better than 'source-availa…
That is exactly the stance. If there are strings attached that means some people can't use it, it's not really open.
(GPL has strings attached if you use it, which is bad in a different way)
I don't think anyone has a problem with the non open source licenses themselves. If you start with a closed source license or whatever, that's fine. It is switching from an open source licenses to something that is not.
A lot of the projects that later switched out of open source would have never gotten any traction if they started with the license they ended up with.
Re: Bear is now source-available
#240Companies in situations like these keep making this blunder when the solution is so right in front of them: use the AGPLv3.
AGPL is not enough to prevent someone providing competing hosting options. They'd need to provide code if they make changes, but competitors are still free to offer the exact same service and not spend anything in development, which reduces the viability of the original project if hosting was the supposed source of income.
So the original project wants to restrict user freedoms, i.e. they _do not_ want the project to be open source; it's a legit choice, even if I personally prefer free software.