> Yet, according to Stallman’s definition [of opensource], software needs to be free: [Free as a bird, Free as a beer]<p>This is totally wrong. Stallman focus on freedom to use the software, he never stated that the software need to be free of charge. Yet, Stallman hates the word opensource because is it to vague and it does not guarantee the freedom to the user. Stallman use the term free software and or libre software, and mean free as in free speech only not free beer. While Free software and opensource software's definition may overlap a bit, it is not the same, for example, some opensource license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately. Free software focus mainly on users' essential freedoms, while the opensource initiative focus on practical benefits only.<p>Here is a good read about opensource vs freesoftware: <a href="https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....</a><p>Richard Stallman deploys a lot of effort trying to raise awareness about the importance of free software please STOP miscoting him.
>Changing one’s license is in general not a great idea. When somebody uses your software, they need to be able to trust they can use it in the future under the same terms.<p>IANAL, but I think this is wrong. Unless the license stipulates that the terms can be changed by the licensor, then the licensee only has to abide by the terms from when they agreed. The GPL goes out of its way to make it possible to use licenses from before what's currently available:<p>>If the Program specifies that a certain numbered version of the GNU General Public License “or any later version” applies to it, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that numbered version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of the GNU General Public License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.
The whole OSS licensing field is a true minefield. IMHO, the Creative Commons folks (CC) have done a <i>much</i> better job at creating a series of clearly defined licenses. With CC, you can quickly determine the freedoms and responsibilities conferred by each license.<p>Meanwhile, in OSS, you have to research the fine distinctions between BSD-2 clause, BSD 3-clause, MIT, etc. Or Apache vs. Eclipse, etc. Even fundamental distinctions such as between OSS and Free Software (GNU-style) are regularly misunderstood, as in this article.<p>I'd like to see the OSI convene the organizations that have issued the various licenses and get them to agree on a new OSS licensing scheme modeled after the system used by the Creative Commons.<p>I think everyone would benefit from that level of clarity.
Article is good on clarity, but a little light on solutions for the "service-wrapping" problem. Maybe that was outside of the article's scope. But it does seem like a problem we have yet to solve. Many have tried, but the ones that attempt to switch their license to stop Amazon from eating their lunch then see their popularity plummet and the major distros kick the software out of their repos.<p>It's a big gamble, and I imagine most product developers don't wish to alienate the FOSS community unless they feel their survival is at stake, so perhaps this is where the FOSS community needs to step in and provide better guidance.
This article was a light read. Well written and clearly stated, but rather short on new ideas. In particular, it would be interesting to know how good the source available licenses - e.g. Redis' RSAL license - are at addressing the cloud-provider issue. Of course, it's not technically open source, but does it work?
Never understood the obsession of OSI and their insisting to not give any protection for the authors. Authors whether individuals or companies should have the right to prevent their work from being rebranded or sold by others with minor or even major modification.<p>How many times did it happen that somebody or organization wrote a complex piece of software and published it and found that some companies just rebranded it and even sold their work with little to none added value while the original authors don't even have the right to complain because this is how open source works.<p>Something like BSL <a href="https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/" rel="nofollow">https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/</a> needs to get more reputation among solo developers and small companies with little to no funding that believe in the power of open source while believing also in having the right of earning a living from their own work.
I've always felt like there's something fundamentally flawed with open source licenses. It seems that they are all promoting the openness of a fragment of code but at the same time twisting your hands ever so slightly when you start using them. All while different licenses are engaged in a fight as to which is more open. For many years I thought that MIT is the most open one. That is until recently when I saw wtfpl [1] and truthfully I fell in love with it. At some point I'll update everything I've ever open sourced to that and I intend to use it for all the other projects I plan on open sourcing, though I am a bit short on motivation to get to that lately(for personal reasons, not because of lack of interest or burnout or anything).<p>[1] <a href="http://www.wtfpl.net/" rel="nofollow">http://www.wtfpl.net/</a>
Anyone have a link on the rollback of the CoronaVirus License? In particular, I have doubts about "The license change was rollbacked as it was considered at least partially unlawful."