[opqpo]

Never understood the obsession of OSI and their insisting to not give any protection for the authors. Authors whether individuals or companies should have the right to prevent their work from being rebranded or sold by others with minor or even major modification.

How many times did it happen that somebody or organization wrote a complex piece of software and published it and found that some companies just rebranded it and even sold their work with little to none added value while the original authors don't even have the right to complain because this is how open source works.

Something like BSL https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/ needs to get more reputation among solo developers and small companies with little to no funding that believe in the power of open source while believing also in having the right of earning a living from their own work.

[zozbot234]

> should have the right to prevent their work from being rebranded or sold by others

Nope, the right to fork, and to rebrand concurrently with a fork, is critical to FLOSS development. Even MariaDB itself is a fork.

[opqpo]

I am not against forking or introducing modifications, etc.... You can fork it, change it for your use case as you wish, but just don't bundle my work, rebrand it and sell it as if it were yours. I meant my work to be free and I want the legal protection to keep my work free.

[jraph]

That would be the NC clause of the Creative Commons licenses. This is not free / open source software anymore though because you remove the right of redistributing the work or the derivative for a fee, which is arguably desirable for free software to foster. With such a license, you might prevent business models like the one of Red Hat, which also produce a great quantity of free software. So while they make money with your work, you can benefit from this with the availability of free software they built with this money.

If you pick a copyleft license like the (A)GPL, it's right that you allow people to sell your software, but their customers will be able to require the source code under this license and will be able make it available to the world.

Now there are loopholes like the one the company behind the GRSecurity project exploits.

If anything here is not desirable, you'll probably want to use a more restrictive license than a FLOSS one, but be careful with all the possible side effect (people not wanting to use or contribute to a non-free software, licence incompatibility with libraries and the rest of the ecosystem, etc.