The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source

Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source by CogitoCogito on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @12:00PM (#17819645)

The example clause at https://commonsclause.com/ does not really make any sense. It first says you can't sell the software and then provides example text below like this:

Software: [name software]

License: [i.e. Apache 2.0]

Licensor: [ABC company]

If they actually used the Apache 2.0 license anyone would have the right to sell the software. Hence putting that clause and then putting "Apache 2.0" as the license makes no sense. The licensing terms would be contradictory.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source by jahewson on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @03:29PM (#17821316)

Yes, exactly. You can't use an unmodified Apache 2.0 license and then try and tack on some extra clause which is incompatible with the underlying license and end up with an intelligible end result. You certainly can't call it "Apache 2.0" and direct people to apache.org. It looks like a legal nightmare.

Even if you like this license, please never use it!

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:The Commons Clause is an existential threat to open source by binomialxenon on Wednesday August 22, 2018 @12:58PM (#17820098)

I agree, it's terribly misleading and could cause a real lack of licensing clarity.

[ Parent | on HN ]