Open source is generally understood as libre, and an OSI approved license.
I think you're thinking of source-available.
Additional reading: https://news.itsfoss.com/open-source-source-available/
Anyway, thanks for the list!
starshipwinepineapple
joined 2 months ago
The difference is that commercialization is inherent with a free (libre) open source license. Whereas going against the intent, but still legally gray area, is imo malicious compliance because it circumvents what the license was intended to solve in the first place.
But that's all i really care to add to this convo, since my initial comment my intent was just to say that the AGPLv3 license does not stop corporations from getting free stuff and being able to charge for it-- especially documentation. Have a good one
No. I said even if they don't maliciously comply with the license [by making the open sourced code unusable without the backend code or some other means outside of scope of this conversation] then they can charge for it.
The malicous part is in brackets in the above paragraph. The license is an OSI approved license that allows commercialization, it would be stupid for me to call that malicious.
Nothing. The context of this comment thread is "fuck corporations" and then proposing AGPL to solve that. I am merely pointing out that if their goal is to have a non-commercial license then AGPL doesn't solve that, which is why i mention they can charge for their services with AGPL.
Who hurt you!?
AGPL is the most restrictive OSI approved license (of the commonly used ones), but it is still a free (libre) open source license. My understanding is just that the AGPL believes in the end-users rights to access to the open source needs to be maintained and therefore places some burden to make the source available if it it's being run on a server.
In general, companies run away from anything AGPL, however, some companies will get creative with it and make their source available but in a way that is useless without the backend. And even if they don't maliciously comply with the license, they can still charge for their services.
As far as documentation goes, you could license documentation under AGPL, and people could still charge for it. It would just need to be kept available for end-users which i don't think is really a barrier to use for documentation.
It would be much more customer and developer friendly to allow linking a service portal instead of providing a phone number. I would go insane if a user called me directly every time one of my projects had a bug or some perceived (non)issue. No, that's not how this works.
Kebab or snake for ease of parsing through them.
Either i wasn't clear or you are replying to the wrong person, but i am in support of foss projects asking for donations in a reasonable manor such as this
There is an option to disable it permanently. Otherwise it is once a year and easily dismissed
view more: next ›
I really like that it is a static website being updated and built on a schedule from github actions.