[happymellon]

I think the problem that these folks have is that AGPL still allows other people to host the software.

They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider.

GPL would have been a better initial license, and AGPL would have been the next logical step to ensure that changes that hosted services make can come back to the original version.

I'm not entirely sure what they were hoping to get by making an extremely permissive licensed piece of software, but competition doesn't appear to be it.

[tptacek]

They care that other people can sell the software, not that other people can use the software, which is why the license they use makes that distinction.

[cxr]

This is a confusing claim. Are you saying the chosen license (<https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/998e87263248...>) makes the software free to use to offer (e.g. gratis) "hosted or managed service[s]" so long as one does not sell the services? This is trivially confirmed not to be true. It prohibits all use of the software to provide services, not just a prohibition on selling them.

[heavyset_go]

> They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider.

Some people pick the AGPL because the license itself acts like garlic to commons destroying IP vampires and are disappointed that those vampires still found a way to drink their IP milkshake.

Has nothing to do with altruism and everything to do with not wanting to be taken advantage of for free labor and IP by powerful entities that would deny them a glass of water if they were dying from thirst.

[account42]

Except AWS is not an IP vampire in this case, they are providing a hosting service. There is no conflict between AWS's use and the spirit of the open source license.

The conflict is entirely between the original developer wanting to be the sole service provider and the open source license that lets people host the software themselves. The software as a service business model is the problem here, not AWS hosting.

[mynameisvlad]

> They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider.

This is an overly negative take. At the end of the day, they are still providing software and the source code free to use for practically every purpose except directly competing with them.

That's still altruistic while also being sensible in the real world rather than an ideal.

[passthejoe]

The license disallows use of the software for what it is intended: setting up a multi-user blogging system.

[kelnos]

No, the license disallows use of the software for seeing up a multi-user blogging system as a paid service.

You might say, "well wouldn't that be most of what people might want to do with it?" And you might be right, but so what? No one is entitled to build their business on the back of someone else's work, not without their permission anyway.

That certainly makes software like this no longer Free Software. But I'm not religious about it, and maybe that's ok sometimes.

(It also runs afoul of several parts of the OSI Open Source Definition, but maybe that's ok too.)

[happymellon]

> No, the license disallows use of the software for seeing up a multi-user blogging system as a paid service

This is incorrect.

https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/master/LICEN...

> You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality.

It does not make the distinction around a financial transaction.

[jwitthuhn]

Not "as a paid service" just "as a service". The license does not allow me to stand up a Bear instance and let people blog on it for free.

[foxglacier]

Not for practically every purpose. It's a blog platform to be used by services that provide blog hosting, just like his own business does, so any use of it would be directly competing with him. From TFA, he never wanted people to actually use it, just to look at the source code.