Open Source License Debate
The cluster discusses controversies over what qualifies as true open source software, focusing on licenses with field-of-use restrictions like the Commons Clause that allegedly violate FSF/OSI definitions and the spirit of FOSS.
Activity Over Time
Top Contributors
Keywords
Sample Comments
Open source doesn't mean you get to ignore the license.
nothing wrong with this license. Don't like it, then don't use it. I don't needs somebody to tell me how OSS is defined or yours.
There isn't any open source license that prevents me from not liking it either.
This is not a legal matter, nor is it related to the FSF and any of the "open source" licenses. My argument is philosophical.Using a license that allows the software to be distributed and modified, while placing restrictions or exemptions to those permissions outside of the license, at the very least sends mixed signals. My point is that if the author wants to make those restrictions, that's fine, but the license is the correct place for it. What's shitty from my moral per
This is a disturbing new trend, open source software is just that, it is open source. Defining who can and can't use it goes against the spirit of FOSS.
Who claims that releasing software under non-copyleft licenses like MIT and BSD is non-free?
Can you provide a link on the "forced" part ? Maybe they realized that is fucking OK to respect the license , they would not like it if someone fucks with their proprietary code either.
It wouldn't be open source without license disagreements.
In my opinion if a company makes software they want to get contributions back there are licenses such as GPL and AGPL, the commons clause just infringes on user freedoms. Thus I think the title is a bit too absolute and thus should be changed to something else.
this is not how CC / FOSS licenses work. if this is how FOSS worked not a soul would use it