[Macha]

You're free to decide open source isn't working for you. (Well, assuming you're not using any open source software that has decided on viral licenses because that's the payment _they_ expect)

You're not free to decide your source available model is open source and reap the marketing benefits of open source without the costs.

[pydry]

I think these projects should just dual license as AGPL and BPL/EPL.

That way all the "it's not really technically open source" complainers couldn't day that its not technically open source.

It wouldnt substantively change anything of course, but that's somewhat the point. BPL/EPL/SSPL was always fully within the spirit of open source, it just pissed off the same large corporations who also can't stand the AGPL.

[Macha]

I'm way more fine with AGPL (without CLA). That's perfectly within the spirit of open source, as it doesn't privilege one group of users over another.

BPL, EPL, SSPL are all "not open source", and AGPL+CLA is "we're setting up for a bait and switch with not open source versions".

[pydry]

I find it curious that Microsoft doesnt get more shit for demanding a CLA, especially given that embrace, extend, extinguish is in their DNA.

[JimDabell]

Even GNU projects ask people to sign a CLA.

[pxc]

Assigning copyright to something like the FSF or the Free Qt Foundation is not at all like assigning copyright to Hashicorp or Microsoft or Oracle.

[teddyh]

GNU projects assign the FSF as the copyright holder. The FSF is inherently trustworthy. (Since the FSF controls the GPL.)

[elderbarry]

One day someone untrustworthy will be in charge of the FSF, and ‘or later’ is suddenly going to be #awkward. Linus made the right call there, for sure.

[bawolff]

> AGPL+CLA is "we're setting up for a bait and switch with not open source versions".

Which is fine imo as long as the moment they pull the bait/switch they stop calling it open source (and others can fork at that point)

[Macha]

I think I'd be fine _using_ an AGPL+CLA product, but not contributing.

[pydry]

Thats exactly the point.

[Macha]

I'm not sure if we're agreeing or not to be honest. I'm not sure if you're implying it's a bad thing that people won't contribute to AGPL+CLA (and thereby justifies these more restrictive licenses), or agreeing that people shouldn't contribute to AGPL+CLA (and thereby volunteer their time to the benefit of one specific vendor).

[davidgerard]

> BPL/EPL/SSPL was always fully within the spirit of open source

It literally is not, and they only exist in order to not be.

[pydry]

They exist so that you can continue to use hashicorp tools in your business for free and look at/change their source code like you would any other software.

The one restriction is that you can't compete with their hosted services using their software. Which 99% of people who use their software have zero interest in.

The "it's not fair! it's not real open source!" narrative is pumped up by companies like Amazon that feel entitled to use their monopoly power to leech value from these companies by selling paid versions of their products.

[aragilar]

No, Open Source has always required that usage be unrestricted (Either Freedom 0 or OSD/DFSG points 5 and 6). Allowing any restrictions on usage tends to get political, as people use the license to push their specific issue, making it much harder to share and use code without issues.

[pydry]

It's a freedom that does not affect 99% of users.

It does affect the the richest, most abusive corporations though.

[aragilar]

So requiring that anyone that runs your code and tries to publish a paper can only do with your approval (which is a real license that exist) is fine also? Saying "anyone can use this however they want" is much easier to check for that coming up with rules (and licenses) that allow for the BSL but not for the above academic licenses.