[P2P-F] A misleading license

[fauno]

Steve Ediger <steveediger at gmail.com> 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/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 617 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ourproject.org/pipermail/p2p-foundation/attachments/20180823/64d12e5a/attachment.sig>