Steve Ediger <[email protected]> writes:

The so-called "Commons Clause" license(promoted by Kevin Wang), as Drew Devault reads it, could mean the end of open source software. He seems to be making a good point. I'm not sufficiently knowledgeable about licensing to fully understand the implications of the "Commons Clause" license, but on first read it's a pretty drastic departure from classic open source licensing. Neither seems to be aware of p2p efforts in peer production, etc. licensing. Could any of you working on licensing frameworks pick this up?

I read it yesterday, in the FAQ it says AGPL is not enough because cloud services are not based around selling the software itself but services built on them, yet the "commons" clause only prevents selling the software instead of services. IMO, it would've been better off saying that if you're selling the software _and services_ you need to pay the original developers, instead of negotiating different terms privately, since the aim of the clause is to make free software sustainable. Right now it's basically a NonCommercial clause. -- https://endefensadelsl.org/