It's not open source, as it is licensed under Commons Clause according to the README, which according to the FAQ is not open source.
I'd be interested in knowing whether the commons clause license has been challenged as the wording is rather simple
I'd be interested in knowing whether the commons clause license has been challenged as the wording is rather simple
For me, open source has been an incredible way to learn software - it's syntax, it's architecture, it's control flow, it's gotchas.
From my understanding of the license [1], you can see the code, learn from it, do whatever you want with it, modify it if you so please, improve on it, whatever. The only thing you cannot do is sell it. Because you've taken someone else's idea in the first place.
I see this happening all the freakin' time and it pisses me off no end. If I suggest a software to someone, the first thing they as is 'Is it open source?' What they really mean is 'Is it free?' Why? If someone is expecting to get paid for creating software for others, why is the feeling not reciprocated towards the person who's created the software in the first place?
From what I've seen, most managers and software engineers, expect to get paid for their work but all the software which helps them make that money, they expect for free.
I find that attitude extremely hypocritical, honestly.
If you want to get paid for developing genuine open source software, there are things you can do to that effect. Get paid for support (even maintaining the code is support). Offer to highlight companies that support your software (even if the highlighting is quite trivial, this is enough to unlock 'marketing' expenses and make it easier for business-oriented entities to support you). Start a Patreon page. There are lots of things that can be done without adding any licensing restrictions.
That would imply public domain. Every license has some licensing restrictions. MIT, BSD, and associated ones are closest to that, but still have restrictions. "Open source" in the literal sense in English is where the source is open to be looked at by everyone. Lots of software is like that, even fully commercial offerings. AGPL, GPL, and co have pretty drastic limitations on commercial usage (much more than the Commons Clause), but are obviously open source. The author should decide licensing, and if the source is available to be perused-- the English language would tend to call that, "open source". I think "OSI Approved Open Source License" would be a better phrase than the linguistically vague "open source". English has proper nouns for that sort of thing, and if we can go around writing "GNU/Linux", I think specifying the _type_ of open source license really isn't too much to ask for.
GPL does not restrict commercial use any more than non-commercial use. What it does restrict is adding additional restrictions, it requires source code to be distributed, and it does not allow disallowing the user to substitute their own version.
If the source is available to be perused I think it is called "shared source" (or "source available"); "open source" is a subset of that, and is according to the OSI definition. "Free software" is also a subset of "source available". "OSI approved" is a subset of "open source" because OSI approved does not include public domain, even if it is still open source (which in some cases it is) (also some stuff that meets the OSI definition (by both words and intention) might not be OSI approved because OSI has not looked at it yet). And then there is also "FOSS".
That's... somewhat accurate.
Let's not pretend the GPL team itself didn't have issues with Tivo-ization, that prompted license changes.
Cloud servic-ization is the virtualization of hardware modification locks.
So call it opinions about "commercial" or use another word, but the GPL definitely has them.
Hence why the FSF advocates the AGPL for software that's designed to be performed "as a service" over a computer network. But "no tivoization" and AGPL clauses do not deny these uses; they simply enable the end user of the software to exercise her rights with respect to it.
It's all well and good, and nothing immoral is done by offering code under this license, but that doesn't make it open source.
Meanwhile the creator gets to share their work freely with anyone who wishes to use it as a component of their own product/software in the spirit of open source.
Discriminating by field of endeavor is contrary to the definition of open source software, and has been since before the term even existed. It's not open source, it's effectively Shared Source and developers who care about open source should stay away from this.
Let’s say it’s a full DB option as part of AWS RDS (or whatever that graph DB equivalent is). That probably is clearly monetizing the product. But what if they completely abstract the API and not expose the original one, it’s just the backing engine for a graph DB product?
Now moving away from a direct product, what if it’s just the backing DB AWS uses for managing all of their infrastructure? It’s not being directly monetized at that point but it might be the most critical component for the AWS operations, which means that it is helping them monetize other products. Do they owe in this case? (I’m speaking about the license here, not whether or not they should or should not based on goodness or feature improvements they want to pay to see).
As the DB moves further away from profit centers in an organization, at what point is it no longer being monetized?
Personally, I’d like to see a model where the OSS developers can and are paid in all of these cases for their work, but I’m not always sure there is anything better than a contract to support and build new features (classic OSS support model).
AGPL requires network-accessible code to be disclosed & licensed under an AGPL-compatible license.
The Commons Clause license outright prohibits SaaS-style offerings of the licensed code.
A lot of startups licensing their code under AGPL might still have AWS et al. eat their lunch, becuase all Amazon needs to do to remain compliant is to publish any modifications made to the AGPL-ed code.
https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/oss-relicensing-cockroach...
> For purposes of the foregoing, "Sell" means practicing any or all of the rights granted to you under the License to provide to third parties, for a fee or other considerationon (including without limitation fees for hosting or consulting/support services related to the Software), a product or service whose value derives, entirely or substantially, from the functionality of the Software.
So, you cannot pay a contractor to set this up, because they can't deliver to you if they charge for setup or hosting?
Please DO let us know if you have any better license options than Common Clause that can help provide an open-source project for the community while stop cloud vendors from monetizing without contributing back?
Thanks again!
My bookmarks: https://katedowninglaw.com/blog/ https://writing.kemitchell.com/ (blog & the blogroll for finding others). See also: https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Awriting.kemitchell.co... http://www.blueoakcouncil.org/