[inasring]

"So if anyone tries to convince you that Commons Clause is wrong because it doesn't meet all the requirements of the Open Source Definition, you should ask them if proprietary is better."

"Freedom for others to commercialize your software comes with starting an open source project, and while that freedom is important to uphold, growth and commercial pressures will inevitably force some projects to close."

https://commonsclause.com/

[LukeShu]

> "you should ask them if proprietary is better [than Commons Clause]."

Neither is better, because they are the same. Commons Clause is proprietary.

If a piece of FOSS that I used became proprietary, I would fork (or use a fork) based on the last FOSS version. Just because the Commons Clause kinda looks like it's FOSS if you squint, doesn't make it any different.

[int_19h]

Commons Clause is clearly neither Free Software nor Open Source, but I don't see how that makes it proprietary.

[LukeShu]

Well, the FSF defines "“proprietary software” as synonymous with nonfree software."[1] But that's kind of a cop-out answer.

"Proprietary" means that the copyright holder retains certain rights, rather than granting the rights to the recipient. In the case of the Commons Clause, the rights that they retain propriety of are the rights to commercial use.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySo...

[int_19h]

When someone releases their software under GPL, they still retain certain rights rather than granting them to the recipient - notably, the right to sell it commercially without providing the source, and without requiring the buyers to adhere to the terms of the GPL. This is clearly a valuable right, seeing how many companies have business models that are built around dual-licensing GPL'd code for commercial proprietary use.

Strictly speaking, the only license that doesn't have the copyright holder retaining any rights is the lack of one (i.e. releasing to public domain). If you're not releasing to PD, that's necessarily because you want to retain some rights. And then it's just a question of which ones. GPL has one answer, something like MIT has another, and Commons Clause has another still. I fail to see what makes some of them proprietary, while others are not.

From my perspective, if I can get the code, hack on it, and release the changed version to others who can also do all of these things in turn, that's enough to make it non-proprietary already. Proprietary is when the software is closed source outright, or the source is provided for "educational use only" (i.e. no derived works allowed), or when derived works cannot be redistributed. Licenses that allow redistribution of patches, but not original code with patches applies, would be the grey territory.

[atq2119]

> Strictly speaking, the only license that doesn't have the copyright holder retaining any rights is the lack of one (i.e. releasing to public domain).

This is a bit nit-picking, but releasing without a license is pretty much the opposite of releasing to the public domain.

If you release without anything, the raw unmodified copyright laws apply, which are rather strict and give the recipient basically no rights - certainly no right to redistribution.

You have to make some kind of explicit statement if you want to release something into the public domain. That's why things like CC0 exist.

[lh7777]

I'm not an expert by any means, but if the Commons Clause's FAQ is accurate, the copyright holder is only retaining a very specific right to commercial use, not all rights to commercial use:

"Commons Clause only forbids you from “selling” the Commons Clause software itself. You may develop on top of Commons Clause licensed software...and you may embed and redistribute Commons Clause software in a larger product, and you may distribute and even “sell” (which includes offering as a commercial SaaS service) your product...You just can’t sell a product that consists in substance of the Commons Clause software and does not add value."

I see how that restricts my rights as a user, but those are rights I simply don't care about. Back in the days of dialup, people were able to make a few bucks by selling Linux CDs to help other users get started. But what examples are there today of unmodified free software being sold by someone other than the primary developer, aside from various app store scams?

[em-bee]

the difficulty is deciding what is added value. for some it may be a new interface to use the software, for others it may be a promise of support or even some kind of insurance.

with this kind of limitation in the license it is really hard to tell what the intentions of the licensors are, what they will tolerate and what they won't allow.

there is really only one position that is safe. either all commercial activity is allowed, or none of it is.

everything else is a legal minefield that is to dangerous for anyone to even touch.

greetings, eMBee.

[fmajid]

For all practical purposes a Commons Clause license is no different from Microsoft’s old “look but don’t touch” “shared source” license.

[int_19h]

Not at all. MS shared source license didn't permit the creation of derived works at all, much less redistribution of them, for any purpose (commercial or otherwise).

[shadowmint]

If we're just randomly quoting things, this one is probably more appropriate, from their FAQ:

> Is this “Open Source”?

> No.

[seba_dos1]

Commons Clause is proprietary, so there's no "better" or "worse".

[Derbasti]

At least it's Source Accessible, though, Free to Use Noncommercially.

[foo101]

Proprietary software can and, in many cases, do have their source code accessible, so yes, Common Clause is as good as proprietary software, no more and no less.