zlacker

A lot of non-OSI open source licenses are ironically motivated by other forms of bad corporate behavior: take open source, SaaSify it, make massive profits, give nothing back. In some cases they go so far as to rebrand it and give no credit. Licenses like the SSPL try to restrict this behavior.

>>api+(OP)
The AGPL (also) does this explicitly, but really there should be a general OSS license that forbids commercial use. That way the software stays where it is most needed and doesn't get abused to make profit. Is there such a license?

>>krageo+R2
Yeah; just make a license which forbids any commercial and is GPL style viral and offer another commercial license so you can make money. Use the same features in both; no need to hold back as no-one using it can do so commercially unless they bought a license, which can be yearly etc etc.

>>krageo+R2
I recall the FSF being pretty adamant that a license restricting commercial use would be a non-free license by default.

>>iib+76
I kind of see their point. Freedom 0 is about the freedom to run software how you wish[1] and "commercial use" can encompass everything from FAANG down to one-man, niche businesses.

[1] The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0). https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

>>krageo+R2
> there should be a general OSS license that forbids commercial use

I think the problem is that if you restrict corporate use then you’re not open. And there’s lots of complexity that comes from being non-open, like what’s commercial? Do governments and NGOs and universities count? Do you have to be a 501c3 charity (or international equivalent)? Do you have revenue thresholds? Profit thresholds? Etc etc

I think at that point, as a user, I’d rather just have a clear license I can pay for along with a copy of the source to see. But as a contributor, I don’t want to do unpaid labor for companies. I think it’s actually exploitative to accept contribs from users without compensation and then turn around and sell. So what’s the point of showing code if people can’t contribute to it.

It’s already possible to do this given a standard copyright. Just publish your code with no license and a copyright and issue some statement how you won’t prosecute small firms or something. So then students can use it, but no companies.

“Open core” and whatnot is silly marketing blarg to try to be cool like open source people while still selling licenses. RedHat came up with a decent model decades ago while using and supporting GPL and I think they were honest and improved the community.

>>iib+76
Yep the OSI’s position is that FOSS is free labor for SaaS and giant corporations. Look at who funds the OSI and I think there is a clear case of capture here.

SaaS is the least free model for software. Closed source commercial is far more open and free than SaaS.

>>api+7F
Yes, it is important to understand that using open-source software in a commercial SaaS is immoral.

However, it should be noted that it applies only to open-source projects that were created by billion-dollar startups like Mongo or Elastic. Using software like Apache, Linux or Postgres is totally fine because it doesn't deprive SV startups (that are so precious to HN) of additional profits.

>>pepper+ZN
> using open-source software in a commercial SaaS is immoral.

I don’t agree with this. I’m not a huge open source contributor but I’ve made some contribs over the year and I explicitly checked out the license before sending my change knowing that it could be used within commercial software.

I don’t care. I’d rather companies spend money and build something else than have to recreate the OSS stuff they use.

I want anyone to be able to use my software for any purpose. I certainly don’t think it’s immoral. And I don’t think the authors and users of BSD, MIT, Apache and other licenses think it’s immoral.