[threwawasy1228]

I think you are being incredibly harsh about the licensing structure, they are simply trying to make sure companies with keyboard apps like Google don't steal their work out from under them by adding in a non-commercial clause. Lots of companies have this Elastic Search License, Business Source License, etc. There are numerous companies who have used permissive licenses only to be horribly burned by companies stealing their work out from underneathe them and they have subsequently used non-OSI approved licenses.

Why is it such a bad thing for developers to license there work however they please in a way that fits with the goals and values of their individual project? Here the keyboard maintainer wants to use a license that isn't FOSS, why is this so concerning to you that they have opinions which differ from yours?

[mkl]

They can use whatever license they want, but that choice will affect who will or can use it. From the license:

> You may use or modify the software only for non-commercial purposes such as personal use for research, experiment, and testing for the benefit of public knowledge, personal study, private entertainment, hobby projects, amateur pursuits, or religious observance, all without any anticipated commercial application.

That means most people can't use this keyboard to write a work email or text message. That's a really restrictive license, and pretty unexpected for a keyboard, to limit what you're allowed to type. Pointing it out doesn't seem harsh.

[logicprog]

I think they mean "use the software" as in using the actual source code of the software in some derivative work or as part of some other application, or downloading and redistributing it for a different purpose, and things like that, not using the end-product application. They could stand to be a lot clearer about that, but their whole goal is just to prevent mega-corporations from being able to freeload off their work to make money off their software, not to prevent random people from using their software in certain contexts that might be construed as "commercial" in some sense. They mean not using the software for commercial purposes in the sense of not selling the software, not simply not using it for business emails or something stupid like that.

[threwawasy1228]

The maintainer literally responded to someone else making a similar claim in this HN thread to say that this is now the meaning of that license clause. Someone else posted the Cornell Law legal dictionary definition of 'commercial purposes'. It is really annoying that people who write software suddenly think they are legal experts who can make these kinds of ridiculous claims anytime 'licenses' come up. Instead of making stuff up off the top of your head as though it was factual, please defer to experts in the field. On legal issues this is particularly annoying.

[mkl]

Did you click on that Cornell link?

> The term “used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare, fee, rate, charge or other consideration, or directly or indirectly in connection with any business, or other undertaking intended for profit.

Wait, "carriage"? Click on the source link and go up a level, and you'll see it's talking about transporting people and things in vehicles: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/31. It's part of "18 U.S. Code Chapter 2 - AIRCRAFT AND MOTOR VEHICLES": https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-2.

This does not apply to software.

[josephcsible]

Wouldn't a copyleft FOSS license like the AGPLv3 keep companies like Google from stealing their work out from under them too?

> Why is it such a bad thing for developers to license there work however they please in a way that fits with the goals and values of their individual project? Here the keyboard maintainer wants to use a license that isn't FOSS, why is this so concerning to you that they have opinions which differ from yours?

See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.en.html

[skeledrew]

AGPL simply means the source of any modifications must be made available. It doesn't stop a company with an overwhelming marketing dept and existing user base from rebranding and providing as their own.

[josephcsible]

Google certainly has an overwhelming marketing dept and existing user base, but they refuse to touch anything AGPL: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...

[skeledrew]

They do, but it's mainly a precautionary measure for them IMO. Too easy to get some AGPL code caught up in some project and then due to its viral nature that entire project would be "tainted", costing them control.

[threwawasy1228]

I don't need to see the link, I am aware of what your stance roughly is. I'm saying:

Why are you so intolerant of the freedoms of other people to make their own choices about what license structures are best for them and their needs?

Developers should have the freedom to choose whatever license they please. Just because you have a pet category of license structure that you think everyone should use, why can't you be respectful of those who choose other options?

It is essentially you forcing your narrow definition of what you think licenses are and how they should be structured onto everyone else?

Why can't people simply say they understand the various licensing options but they choose one that isn't the one you like after a careful consideration? Are they simply not allowed to have a diffferent opinion than you?

If you make your argument and the maintainer still chooses another license, that is a failure on the part of the FSF to properly sell their mission or elaborate their arguments. Does the fact that someone chose something other than what you prefer mean that you now need to go around evangelizing every time that any non-FOSS license is used?

[josephcsible]

You're mixing up freedom with power. What you're calling freedom is really the power to withhold freedom from others.