“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 danieldk on Monday September 10, 2018 @08:47AM (#17951385)

I agree that (again IANAL) the clause would have to be extended to something like 'distribute or perform' rather than purely focusing on distribution. But I think it could be a compromise where software can still be fully open source, while calling out cloud providers that are not contributing back (well, actually, they'd have to call out themselves by putting the notice somewhere visibly ;)).

But I don't think they are really listening to other suggestions. This seems to be an effort backed by some VCs with the goal of getting the benefits of open source ('it's just like open source, so please contribute'), while having an exclusive opportunity to monetize 'the commons'.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:“Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling op... by gregwebs on Monday September 10, 2018 @02:26PM (#17953866)

Thinking about this more, this approach is innovative but awkward. The point of licenses is that they provide a legal basis. "Calling out cloud providers" has no legal basis, but is instead an attempt at societal shaming. Shaming should be achievable without using licenses.

But I would rather have legal licenses than a shaming system. If we want contributions back, lets make a better AGPL. If we don't want cloud providers to sell the software, lets have the Commons Clause (but just don't annoy everyone by prepending Apache).

[ Parent | on HN ]