undefined | Better HN

0 pointsmarcodiego4y ago0 comments

If you’re some random dude who shows up off the street, FLOSS devs will share source.

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

kube-system4y ago· 3 in thread

I never said otherwise, and neither did the author.

Although now that you mention it, that’s not always true… which is exactly why the AGPL was written.

I mean, the consensus is that using FOSS to provide SaaS and not providing source isn't really FOSS. It doesn't award the four freedoms, and is basically a hack to make FOSS back into proprietary software rather than some gotcha.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

kube-system4y ago

If the literal text a the software license is, verbatim, a FOSS license, it’s a bit of a no-true-Scotsman to say that it doesn’t count. Licenses are just documents.

I think it’s silly that some people insist that FOSS licenses are perfectly infallible and proprietary licenses are always fatally flawed.

They all have pros and cons, people misuse them, and none of them are perfect. If there was one that was perfect, everyone would use it. But everyone has different needs and concerns. Pick the license that does what you want to do.

monocasa4y ago

No, it's that there a definition of free software based in the four freedoms that the licences only approximate.

That's why GPL has an 'or later' clause, to patch fix issues when people find out ways to remove the four freedoms while complying with the letter of the license.

So I'm specifically not making the argument that "FOSS licenses are perfectly infallible", only that everything proprietary licenses do, FOSS licenses and support contracts do better from the user's perspective.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

4 comments · 1 top-level

kube-system4y ago· 3 in thread

I never said otherwise, and neither did the author.

Although now that you mention it, that’s not always true… which is exactly why the AGPL was written.

monocasa4y ago

I mean, the consensus is that using FOSS to provide SaaS and not providing source isn't really FOSS. It doesn't award the four freedoms, and is basically a hack to make FOSS back into proprietary software rather than some gotcha.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

kube-system4y ago

If the literal text a the software license is, verbatim, a FOSS license, it’s a bit of a no-true-Scotsman to say that it doesn’t count. Licenses are just documents.

I think it’s silly that some people insist that FOSS licenses are perfectly infallible and proprietary licenses are always fatally flawed.

They all have pros and cons, people misuse them, and none of them are perfect. If there was one that was perfect, everyone would use it. But everyone has different needs and concerns. Pick the license that does what you want to do.

monocasa4y ago

No, it's that there a definition of free software based in the four freedoms that the licences only approximate.

That's why GPL has an 'or later' clause, to patch fix issues when people find out ways to remove the four freedoms while complying with the letter of the license.

So I'm specifically not making the argument that "FOSS licenses are perfectly infallible", only that everything proprietary licenses do, FOSS licenses and support contracts do better from the user's perspective.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse