“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling open source as products

Re:“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling op... by dragonwriter on Monday September 10, 2018 @08:43AM (#17951360)

> 99% of the users will use it as Apache-2.0 rather than sell it as a cloud service.

No, that's the fundamental problem: 0% of the users will “use it as Apache 2.0”; this is not a dual license with Apache 2.0 license and some other license as options, it's a single license which is more restrictive than Apache 2.0.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling op... by gregwebs on Monday September 10, 2018 @01:43PM (#17953525)

Practically speaking, how is that different than shipping Apache 2.0 with a NOTICE file? Having to include a notice is more restrictive than Apache 2.0 without a notice. For a cloud provider, there is a real difference, but for a non-cloud provider the NOTICE version is more restrictive.

A question I don't see addressed is: what licensing compatibility issues (for non-cloud providers) are presented by the commons clause?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling op... by lozenge on Monday September 10, 2018 @02:03PM (#17953657)

It's incompatible with all open source licences.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling op... by detaro on Monday September 10, 2018 @02:04PM (#17953672)

For compatibility with Open Source licenses the Commons Clause is like any other proprietary license: some (e.g. MIT) allow combination, and the result is proprietary, others (e.g. GPL) are entirely incompatible.

[ Parent | on HN ]