Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by hunterpayne 35 days ago
"They have a problem with their business model, then"

Ok, then don't be surprised when the most popular license becomes the FairSource license. Under this license, you have no rights, no ability to fork and no ability to modify, no ability to legally change the software in any way, but hey...you can see the source right. I feel like you don't understand the tragedy of the commons somehow.
1 comments
bornfreddy 35 days ago
That's a huge misrepresentation of fair source licenses. They prevent competing with the original vendor, but still try to retain Right to Repair as much as possible, for example:

> The Fair Core License, or FCL, is a mostly-permissive non-compete Fair Source license that eventually transitions to Open Source after 2 years.

link
hunterpayne 34 days ago
The license is what I say it is when I release. You get no rights. You won't be able to fork. You won't be able to legally compile it. You get no rights. Because you have abused the trust of the devs. This is the new normal. Congrats on destroying one of the biggest sources of value in society. And nobody else using it will care because they aren't sociopaths that think they have the right to steal from others.
link
rpdillon 33 days ago
> aren't sociopaths that think they have the right to steal from others.

I cannot possibly fathom how you're getting from "I deployed some GPLv3 software as part of my hosting service" to "sociopath that think(s) they have a right to steal from others."

Copyright, by default, reserves all rights for the author. The authors then chose to license under a license that explicitly gives all those rights back, and when users leverage those rights, it is being cast as theft. That's...not coherent.

These companies want it both ways: open-source to gain traction, closed-source to monetize. In other areas, we call this "enshittification", and that's what it is here, too.

link