agpl

Bilingual

Whither Open Source?
2 months ago
- Commercial open source software (COSS) uses the AGPL license to restrict user freedom and protect business interests, despite its deceptive marketing as promoting freedom.
- The AGPL's legal ambiguities create fear and uncertainty, leading to it being weaponized as 'scareware' to prevent competition and limit use.
- COSS businesses often depend on restrictive licenses like AGPL to avoid free-riders and competition, but this undermines true open source principles.
- Permissive licenses (e.g., MIT, Apache 2.0) often fail for COSS, leading to unsustainability and eventual relicensing.
- Fair source offers an honest alternative with clear non-compete clauses and delayed open source publication, balancing sustainability with transparency.
- Fair source ensures eventual open sourcing of proprietary code, protecting users and businesses without legal manipulation.
Weaponized Open Source
2 months ago
- Startups use the AGPL license as a marketing tool to appear open source, but it actually functions as a veiled non-compete to eliminate competition.
- A Contributor License Agreement (CLA) allows the vendor to relicense the code, giving them exclusive rights to build proprietary features while preventing others from doing the same.
- The AGPL's ambiguity and 'infectious' copyleft clause create fear and uncertainty, causing businesses to avoid it and forcing them to use the vendor's cloud offering.
- This strategy is not about user freedom but about vendor lock-in, reducing open source to a marketing term.
- When such startups fail, their proprietary features disappear with no fallback, leaving customers with nothing.
<antirez>
2 months ago
- The author went for a 4-hour walk on Mount Etna on May 1st, Italy's workers holiday, and enjoys walking to clear his mind while coding.
- He released a blog post about switching Redis to the AGPL license and learned that license understanding and community trust matter more than just legal clauses.
- He was touched by Simon Willison's similar perspective on open source, highlighting how shared values in the community drive open source success.
- Despite his early Linux contributions, the author moved away from Linux due to fragmentation and binary compatibility issues, favoring zero-dependency software distribution.
- He believes distributions should offer both Redis and ValKey as they have diverged, allowing users to choose based on features or licensing policies.
- The author appreciates the kindness of the community, despite some harsh critiques about license decisions.
- He notes that many users are indifferent to license debates as long as software works, emphasizing that practical use often outweighs licensing expertise.

Whither Open Source?

Weaponized Open Source

<antirez>