For example:
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/recent-licensing-updates
> We added the Commons Clause to our list of nonfree licenses... It's particularly nasty given that the name, and the fact that it is attached to pre-existing free licenses, may make it seem as if the work is still free software.
So while RMS was undeniably a force of good, we should take his advice with grain of salt, and start discussing which freedoms we can protect, and what the price for that is.
> The “Commons Clause” is a nonfree license because it forbids selling copies of the program, and even running the program as part of implementing any commercial service. Adding insult to injury, it also twists the words “commons” and “sell.”
RMS and FSF's stance on software freedom is ultimately straightforward: they want to protect end user's freedoms, and protecting this involves removing the ability for anyone in between to take away end user's freedoms.
> They consider Commons Clause to be harmful for good reasons.
Your quote only tells that they consider the license non-free. Which is true, if you subscribe to their definition of "freedom" [0] (which I don't - YMMV). Harmful though? I don't think so.
Have you looked around lately? Has opensource software won? Where it did, it did because it helped big tech companies to "commoditize their complements". Where it didn't, it is because by itself it doesn't provide hobby developers with any incentive to keep working once the maintaining stops being fun.
> RMS and FSF's stance on software freedom is ultimately straightforward: they want to protect end user's freedoms, and protecting this involves removing the ability for anyone in between to take away end user's freedoms.
Exactly. What they are missing however is that without developers' engagement you get the situation that we have now. And that some of the freedoms are more important than others - like freedom to repair, to run for every purpose, and... to actually have a polished piece of software. Do you still think opensource "won"?
In the end it's a free world, or it should be. Also free to decide which license to use. And free from hordes of preachers falling on every mention of Commons Clause.</rant>
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T...
RMS/FSF goal is to protect the rights of end users. Not developers. That's the difference between copyleft and permissive licenses. Commons Clause is neither, and it seems focused on the wrong thing. The problem isn't charging for software; the problem is charging and preventing others from redistribution and access to source code.
As for losing interest in maintaining software, I don't see how Commons Clause helps.
This is simply not what Commons Clause does, you really should read it. Access to the source code is not prevented. And redistribution is not prevented either, on the condition that end users do not sell it. That is all.
> As for losing interest in maintaining software, I don't see how Commons Clause helps.
It helps by allowing someone to actually build a business around their work without fear of "unfair" competition ("unfair" is in quotes because it is legal and in line with FOSS, it just doesn't seem fair to me [0]).
[0] https://onezero.medium.com/open-source-betrayed-industry-lea...