News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on “Commons Clause” was intended to stop AWS from selling open source as products. Parent comment

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 ]