Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Scapegoating free software’s failures

writing.kemitchell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 123 posts

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#11

Post by kemitchell »

mwcampbell wrote: post #7
kemitchell wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you want a noncommercial license, which is a perfectly fine license to want, but not one traditionally honored as open. Consider https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/

What's the difference between that license and the License Zero Prosperity license?

The current version of Prosperity uses Creative Commons' approach to prohibiting commercial use. Polyform uses a new, and in my opinion, much improved approach with practical "safe harbors" of clarity for predominantly noncommercial organizations, as well as common personal uses. Prosperity also includes a built-in free trial period for commercial users, while Creative Commons does not.

The forthcoming version 3 of Prosperity will be written as a fork of Polyform Noncommercial, leveraging its improved approach, still with a built-in free trial. If you're interested in those terms, I'd greatly appreciate feedback: https://github.com/licensezero/prosperity-public-license/blo...

If something in the terms isn't clear, that's the terms' fault, not yours. I'd appreciate an issue or an e-mail, so we can make it clear.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#12

Post by kemitchell »

api wrote: post #3
catern wrote: post #2

While this article's tone is somewhat angry and personal, it makes some quite interesting points and takes a perspective that I've never heard before. Before reading the article I was tentatively in favor of more expansive copyleft licenses such as Mongo's SSPL, for various reasons. But I hadn't considered something implied by that position, which this article says directly: The FSF and what one might call "mainstrea…

I've thought this for years: the aggressive defense of super liberal OSS licenses with no sort of "SaaS clause" or other limits turns FOSS into free labor for SaaS companies. SaaS is more closed than closed: you control nothing, not even your data, and can trivially be spied on and monetized in other questionable ways. The fact that some of the pieces of a SaaS site are open source is meaningless and changes nothing.…

> SaaS is more closed than closed

Nice turn of phrase.

I'd add only that services not only can be more closed than software, it's normal and in some sense acceptable that they are. Whether it's freedom rhetoric or business advice, there's a strange disconnect between received wisdom for software and received wisdom for services.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#13

Post by paulryanrogers »

phkahler wrote: post #4
catern wrote: post #2

While this article's tone is somewhat angry and personal, it makes some quite interesting points and takes a perspective that I've never heard before. Before reading the article I was tentatively in favor of more expansive copyleft licenses such as Mongo's SSPL, for various reasons. But I hadn't considered something implied by that position, which this article says directly: The FSF and what one might call "mainstrea…

Two point he made that I've often wondered about. 1) why wasn't AGPL used for GPLv3? 2) why should companies be able to keep proprietary version from being distributed? The second one I can see being possible by having employees agree not to exercise their GPL redistribution rights as a condition of employment. Still it seems like a large group of companies could all agree to that kind of thing to effectively take a…

Maybe because it would upset developers who had chosen GPL2-or-later version. They might see it as overreach. That could hurt adoption.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#14

Post by StavrosK »

_frkl wrote: post #10
StavrosK wrote: post #5

So if I want to write an OSS library that can't be used for monetary gain, what license do I release it under? AGPLv3? EDIT: Actually, I misspoke, since monetary gain isn't the problem. I should have said "used against user freedom", but that's much less well-defined. I want a license that is as "open" as possible, for whatever definition of "open".

I'd say as strongly copy left as possible, although that will inevitably bring with it some restrictions for users. Parity ( https://paritylicense.com/ ) is my favourite at the moment (created by the blog posts author). It's interesting in that it doesn't try to prescribe the license downstream projects use as long as it's free (in contrast to for example GPL) but is, at the same time, very strict in regards to when…

That's an interesting license, thanks! I would have liked some examples about what exactly it does, because reading the text doesn't make all the ramifications clear, but it looks promising.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#15

Post by nitrogen »

phkahler wrote: post #4
catern wrote: post #2

While this article's tone is somewhat angry and personal, it makes some quite interesting points and takes a perspective that I've never heard before. Before reading the article I was tentatively in favor of more expansive copyleft licenses such as Mongo's SSPL, for various reasons. But I hadn't considered something implied by that position, which this article says directly: The FSF and what one might call "mainstrea…

Two point he made that I've often wondered about. 1) why wasn't AGPL used for GPLv3? 2) why should companies be able to keep proprietary version from being distributed? The second one I can see being possible by having employees agree not to exercise their GPL redistribution rights as a condition of employment. Still it seems like a large group of companies could all agree to that kind of thing to effectively take a…

employees agree not to exercise their GPL redistribution rights

If you prepare a derivative of a GPL app as a work for hire, what GPL rights would you have? You don't own the copyright on the modifications, the employer does.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#16

Post by unlinked_dll »

m463 wrote: post #9
StavrosK wrote: post #5

So if I want to write an OSS library that can't be used for monetary gain, what license do I release it under? AGPLv3? EDIT: Actually, I misspoke, since monetary gain isn't the problem. I should have said "used against user freedom", but that's much less well-defined. I want a license that is as "open" as possible, for whatever definition of "open".

It would not be free software. Free software passes on the freedom to the USER of the software, preserving access to the source code, the ability to change it, etc.

Not to nitpick but OP mentioned "OSS" not "FOSS." Open does not mean free. You can allow others to access to your IP without the freedom to use it however they want, since nothing is black and white.

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#17

Post by paulryanrogers »

m463 wrote: post #9
StavrosK wrote: post #5

So if I want to write an OSS library that can't be used for monetary gain, what license do I release it under? AGPLv3? EDIT: Actually, I misspoke, since monetary gain isn't the problem. I should have said "used against user freedom", but that's much less well-defined. I want a license that is as "open" as possible, for whatever definition of "open".

It would not be free software. Free software passes on the freedom to the USER of the software, preserving access to the source code, the ability to change it, etc.

Maybe. But the status quo doesn't pass along those rights to the users of the USER's services. Unless it's like the AGPL

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#18

Post by pygy_ »

nitrogen wrote: post #15
phkahler wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two point he made that I've often wondered about. 1) why wasn't AGPL used for GPLv3? 2) why should companies be able to keep proprietary version from being distributed? The second one I can see being possible by having employees agree not to exercise their GPL redistribution rights as a condition of employment. Still it seems like a large group of companies could all agree to that kind of thing to effectively take a…

employees agree not to exercise their GPL redistribution rights If you prepare a derivative of a GPL app as a work for hire, what GPL rights would you have? You don't own the copyright on the modifications, the employer does.

Hypothetically: the employer gave you a copy of the modified software (by having you modify it). He's bound by the license and so are you?

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#19

Post by [deleted] »

api wrote: post #3
catern wrote: post #2

While this article's tone is somewhat angry and personal, it makes some quite interesting points and takes a perspective that I've never heard before. Before reading the article I was tentatively in favor of more expansive copyleft licenses such as Mongo's SSPL, for various reasons. But I hadn't considered something implied by that position, which this article says directly: The FSF and what one might call "mainstrea…

I've thought this for years: the aggressive defense of super liberal OSS licenses with no sort of "SaaS clause" or other limits turns FOSS into free labor for SaaS companies. SaaS is more closed than closed: you control nothing, not even your data, and can trivially be spied on and monetized in other questionable ways. The fact that some of the pieces of a SaaS site are open source is meaningless and changes nothing.…

[deleted]

Re: Scapegoating free software’s failures

#20

Post by type0 »

_frkl wrote: post #10
StavrosK wrote: post #5

So if I want to write an OSS library that can't be used for monetary gain, what license do I release it under? AGPLv3? EDIT: Actually, I misspoke, since monetary gain isn't the problem. I should have said "used against user freedom", but that's much less well-defined. I want a license that is as "open" as possible, for whatever definition of "open".

I'd say as strongly copy left as possible, although that will inevitably bring with it some restrictions for users. Parity ( https://paritylicense.com/ ) is my favourite at the moment (created by the blog posts author). It's interesting in that it doesn't try to prescribe the license downstream projects use as long as it's free (in contrast to for example GPL) but is, at the same time, very strict in regards to when…

Isn't Parity License a source-available share-alike freeware license? It seems very different from GPL and even the ideas by which copyleft was originated.
Post reply on HN