This isn't bear, the compilation database building cli tool, for those similarly confused.
Bear is now source-available
41–50 of 509 posts
Re: Bear is now source-available
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one of four licenses linked on the front page of the FSF.
And it's the most abused license in the history of open source [0] [1]. [0]: https://keygen.sh/blog/weaponized-open-source/ [1]: https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/
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.
Re: Bear is now source-available
#43As 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…
> we should find a term (better than 'source-available' [...])
That term already exists: it's proprietary software.
If you're going to restrict what users can do with their copies of the program, please do not try to label the program as Free Software / open-source.
Re: Bear is now source-available
#44As 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…
Why the scare quotes, the first freedom of both Open Source and Free Software is the right to run the software for any purpose . It's not some little unimportant detail. It's arguably the most important property of Open Source.
I argue that the natural winner-take-all dynamics of the marketplace are not beneficial to the the mission of free and open source software. In fact, having no safeguard against large organisations making money this way is actually hugely detrimental to the mission by enabling these companies to ensnare unsuspecting users in a web of both their own proprietary software as well as all that free and open source software has to offer.
Re: Bear is now source-available
#45Re: Bear is now source-available
#46As 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…
> we should find a term (better than 'source-available' [...]) That term already exists: it's proprietary software. If you're going to restrict what users can do with their copies of the program, please do not try to label the program as Free Software / open-source.
[flagged]
Re: Bear is now source-available
#47I certainly get the hurt feelings, but i'm not clear on the license at all.
>Limitations: You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality.
Where on the spectrum sits an average cookie-cutter VPS provider that comes with an OS package manager that installs the program? Does the VPS provider have to screen the package manager? Does that change if they build a wiki with "1-click-install" that just sends an ssh command to install?
Is this just a requirement to have some theater where an "unaffiliated" third party has to provide the set-up scripts? Or just a rule you can't mention the option during the sales pipeline?
Re: Bear is now source-available
#48As 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…
Free software ought to not be discriminatory and arbitrarily exclude users. Full stop. Anyone means anyone.
Now, we can agree and talk about unfortunate consequences and possible mitigations.
The AGPL is one possible mitigation: Big corps are usually afraid of it. But they do themselves: the AGPL doesn't forbid them to use the thing.
Re: Bear is now source-available
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
And it's the most abused license in the history of open source [0] [1]. [0]: https://keygen.sh/blog/weaponized-open-source/ [1]: https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/
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]
Re: Bear is now source-available
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's one of four licenses linked on the front page of the FSF.
And it's the most abused license in the history of open source [0] [1]. [0]: https://keygen.sh/blog/weaponized-open-source/ [1]: https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/
What specifically is your problem with the AGPL? I read both of your links and while there are a lot of incisive statements ("But the truth is, the AGPL isn't used to increase user freedom — it's used to restrict it, primarily through its legal ambiguities") you never spell out why you believe them.