81–90 of 186 posts
Do these types of things really matter anymore? If you have tokens, given the source is available pretty easy to reimplement with plausible deniability.
It's a quixotic crusade, in perfect European style.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You might also be interested in the O'Saasy license ( https://osaasy.dev/ ) which is in the similar vein, but simpler. HashiCorp switched to BUSL license for their products/tools when they already had substantial market share, and they still faced MPL-licensed forks (Terraform -> OpenTofu, Vault -> OpenBao). It will be interesting to see in a few years if those tools notably cut into their share. I'm not sure a new t…
Looks nice. Two main differences: - BUSL is OSI-approved and listed in SPDX, so corporate lawyers won't be scared away by it: https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html - With BUSL the restriction is revenue-based. You can still create competing products, but would have to pay a licensing fee.
Debian FSG compatible No
FSF approved No
OSI approved No
GPL compatible No
Copyleft NoIf one licences open source under a strong copyleft licence (say AGPL3) presumably one can open up later and issue under weaker licences (say MIT) if one chooses? Presumably you can also sell access to it with a full commercial licence if one chooses?
This works as long as you're the only copyright holder. If other developers contribute, weakening the license requires their approval.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No success yet, but I recently found BUSL - used by Terraform: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License It stops companies from building high-revenue products for free, while not being as scary as AGPL/LGPL from the business perspective, and completely unrestricted for everyone else (despite not being technically an open-source license).
Once you decide on a non-free license, in the FSF sense, in the DFSG sense, and in the open source sense, does the details of the license matter much? You want as many people to pay as possible, and you do not wish for others to compete with you providing this software. It's pretty much a standard non-free commercial license, which exact wording will matter only to purchasing department of your customers. It will be…
For FOSS I personally prefer Apache 2.0 license, as 10 years from now I have no idea what people will need for their projects. Personally, it makes me happy if people can make a business using a bit of my work. Just don't redirect commercial support tickets onto community projects, or get neglected customers to contact authors. The way I see it... is symbiotic commercial relationships are important, as people can get…
It's an idea as old as any:
The freedom to restrict the freedom of others, is it really a freedom?
It is a tiresome debate. People can argue about it until the sun sets without reaching an agreement. Better to be clear about which kind of freedom you mean, and respect the choice of others.
Plenty of businesses have been started around free software without necessarily restricting the freedoms of others. It is often argued that this constitutes a better approximation of a truly free market than the entry barriers intellectual property law can put up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, yeah, in the meanwhile I've also googled your nick and saw that you're in academics. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks!
Yes, I think of it more in the context of photo and video integrity, but you can certainly imagine an unscrupulous individual rewriting something and changing the meaning. Of course, I doubt a license would stop that person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think people getting time sponsored working on FOSS is quite rare. Would like to do that myself, but instead I just develop in my free time.
You mean you have never written or used FOSS applications at work? I find that very surprising, but I have seen some shops practice clean room coding policies. =3
> "Over the years it has been clear that we in the “open source” camp (as opposed to the “free software” camp) were wrong all along. We won the debate, and gained little for users or developers. All that our efforts did was to make it easier for big corporations build things more cheaply and for billionaires to become trillionaires." I hate that some people like to put us all in the same bag. Please don't include me.…
The license still allows AI training theft. What is needed is an OSS EULA that forbids IP theft, since the governments are corrupt and still allow it. The EULA needs a clause that 10% of the market cap of a company will be paid to the IP holder upon violating it.
But what we still can do is stop programming for free for Big Tech, and this license at least gets us closer toward that goal.