@KarlHeinzHasliP
> workadventu.re is the best matrix front end
This does look cool. Code is under AGPLv3, but they seem to think they can simultaneously give full permission for reuse *and* revoke some of those uses;
https://workadventu.re/faq/what-is-the-license-of-the-self-hosted-version-of-workadventure/
The Commons Clause is a dead duck legally when apply to v3 GNU licenses, so feel free to ignore it;
Because the #GPL #License text is added to the top and the #CommonsClause is added afterwards #github considers the project #GPLv3 software.
I’m amazed GitHub doesn’t have better licensing monitoring tools. This makes automated license tracking pretty iffy in my book.
"draft #CommonsClause"
The #CommonsClause pollutes the #FOSS #commons. It creates new hazards for software users to navigate.
It's /especially/ confusing when nonsensically combined with a #GPL family license like #AGPLv3.
#FreeSoftware #OpenSource
https://github.com/thecodingmachine/workadventure/issues/2317
One that comes to mind is FOSSA. They're a venture capital backed startup that offers "Audit-Grade Open Source Dependency Protection".
They also are the originators of the "#CommonsClause" #OpenSource license rider that adds confusing restrictions that make software no longer Open Source.
https://commonsclause.com/
Eww, #WorkAdventure is licensed under #CommonsClause (put on top of AGPL), which makes it non-free software in total. https://github.com/thecodingmachine/workadventure/issues/523
That really is unfortunate.
We need to talk licenses. Recently discovered #commonsclause through the #n8n project (big fan). I'm quite ideological but I really dig the pragmatism behind this license. The code is still #opensource, accessible and extendible. That's what I want from a product I need to trust. If the owner wants my contributions but doesn't want me making money from it… I understand that! Yet I read a lot of criticism about this license.
What am I not seeing?
Like #FairSource, and the #CommonsClause, #LicenseZero is yet another attempt at mususing the term #OpenSource to describe the software license equivalent of the #NoCommercialUse licenses in the #CreativeCommons suite:
https://licensezero.com/
@djsumdog true, there is the #CommonsClause, and the use of the #PeerProductionLicense on software, both of which are motivated by similar concerns to the NC license, but I would argue they have very different implications (I know
@wolftune disagrees with that, but there you go)
@CharredStencil @LWFlouisa
A sober analysis of the #CommonsClause license from a business perspective. Applying the #
https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2018/09/10/tragedy-of-the-commons-clause/
Some thoughts on the #CommonWashing that is the #CommonsClause license, put together by #BradlyKuhn:
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/aug/22/commons-clause/
Richard Stallman: la licencia Commons Clause no es libre
Richard Stallman se pronuncia sobre la licencia Commons Clause y dice que no se trata de una licencia libre, ya que puede llevar a confisión
https://blog.desdelinux.net/richard-stallman-la-licencia-commons-clause-no-es-libre/
I agree, those non-FLO incompatible terms are problematic. I/we support *neither*. But do notice that #CommonsClause and #Copyfarleft are at least different motivations. The former is meant specifically to *encourage* and enable proprietary licensing (while still having FLO something), while the latter is *sometimes* used by those who would like to offer the capitalists nothing at all, not even via a proprietary license.
But either harms the FLO commons we have.
@strypey @wolftune @snowdrift Please oppose #CommonsClause and #Copyfarleft for functional data.
@wolftune @snowdrift yes, I agree. The #CommonsClause FAQ does offer a critique of AGPL, but it doesn't seem to me like they're really thought it through at a deep level. #OpenGift and #CoopExchange are other platforms trying to solve the funding issue. I've seen pitches from both at recent conferences. I'm skeptical, but intrigued
@wolftune well, #CopyFarLeft uses a cooperative vs. corporation distinction, rather than libre vs. proprietary. But I agree that the underlying logic of trying to exclude some parties from freely using free code kind of defeats the purpose, however well-intended (#CommonsClause, #FairSource etc). It's not a radical solution, in that it tries to bandage the symptom, rather than fix the problem at root (asymmetrical power/wealth relations between communities and corporations)
What Matt doesn't want to accept, is that #copyleft is precisely the answer people are looking for when they try to apply things like the #FairSource license, the #CommonsClause, or the #PPL (Peer Production License) to software. They want to protect the software commons from extractive capitalists, who don't want to contribute back to the pool they draw from. Copyleft was created to achieve exactly that protection of the software commons.
Wow. That #commonsclause is a terrible thing. I sincerely hope nobody adopts it. It's also deceptively named because it is literally about LIMITING who can use software, not expanding it.
https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2018/aug/22/commons-clause/
