Try the AGPL.
"It is based on the AGPL, with a modified Section 13 that requires that those making SSPL-licensed software available to third-parties (modified or not) as part of a “service” must release the source code for the entirety of the service, including without limitation all “management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available”, under the SSPL. MongoDB is the publisher of this license. They have a FAQ about the license https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/server-side-public-l..."
AGPL is fine - it ensures that open source projects remain open source. If a vendor hosts an AGPL project as is (unlikely imho) and is able to point to the existing repo for source, then that's great. If they make changes to the code, they must also make that source available through a compatible license.
If the original case for the GLP is still not covered by the AGPL in $current_year open source licenses have failed.
No one is entitled to their business models, no matter how noble their goals.
It's quite simple: if you believe in the ethos of Free Software, you need to be prepared to the possibility of other people taking your work, doing modifications and even profiting from it. That is the whole point.
If you don't want "evil corporations" from taking your code, then keep it closed and say it so. But don't be dishonest with others when you say that you "support open source" while not ready to walk the walk.
Essentially, the intention of copyleft to increase software freedom, which is the overall mission, has foundered. It is didn’t work and need revising.
Smaller companies are an ally of convenience here.
> the overall mission, has foundered.
Absolutely not. I've never had so much freedom on how to do computing.
2) in the worst case analysis, FOSS trickle downs to people. Eg: WhatsApp could only have started if we had FOSS. It may have been colored by Facebook, but at the end of the day it was thanks to it that the "non-elite" managed to disrupt the telcos and offer messaging for free.
Half the world’s communication being under the control of one company with a dictator is hardly a success.
I don't like that so many people preferred to go for a closed solution and I certainly don't like virtual monopolies, but people are there out of their own volition.
30 years ago, there was no real alternative for Windows on the desktop. All productivity tools were closed. Today, people buy iPhones and sign up to Instagram/TikTok because they want to.
What would you propose, to have Stallman pointing a gun to everyone who didn't attend a install fest?
But they were comparing to "10 years ago. Or 20."
> What would you propose, to have Stallman pointing a gun to everyone who didn't attend a install fest?
If I can propose wild things, then I'll propose that something forces big hosting companies to share their code.
And data freedom is an important issue that has a huge overlap with software freedom. I like the EU's movement toward forcing export and interoperability for big entities.
Linux only became a viable desktop around 2010.
Blender was open sourced in the early 2000.
StarOffice was a viable alternative to MS Office 2003.
The more things you list that are before the year(s) they used as reference points, the more you support their argument that software freedom peaked a while ago and has been going downhill in major ways in more recent years.
- Google's original Android was more open than any of the alternatives. And even if Google went on the direction of closing Android and putting functionality around its Play Services, there are a good number of alternatives that build on Android and make it completely free. The number of devices that can run LineageOS/Murena/Linux is going up, not down.
- All social media was closed, and now we are seeing an explosion of open source projects. The number of people using it is going up, not down.
- Self-hosting software is easier than ever.
I fail to see any time interval where the availability of free software has been reduced. All it takes is a motivated individual.
Huh? Where?
I don't see how that confusion applies to the tradeoffs discussed here.
Every company that pays through the nose for their cloud hosting, but does not allocate anything in their budget to support the downstream projects.
Every owner of a pricey Apple device who claims "they need something that just works" but never spared a few dollars per month to contribute to the development of free alternatives.
If a fraction of these people realized that quality free software takes money to be developed, and were willing to invest in it, the FOSS funding issue would be solved. The problem is, people are not willing to pay for R&D, they just want to pay for the finished product.
But the problem is not because they're conflating it with "free as in speech". They're ignoring that aspect entirely.
Even that is a somewhat temporary hack. The SSPL spreads to:
> "management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available"
and sure, AWS and Azure definitely don't want to open source all of that stuff now, or for the next decade or two.
But that's not their competitive advantage; that's their datacentres and their sheer gigantic size and deep pockets, making them a "safer" partner for enterprises. National governments won't run a critical service on Redis Cloud when Azure Redis is available, even if the software stacks were 100% identical.
It's quite possible to imagine a cloud provider in 2040 that does run a fully OSS stack and is able to sell SSPL software on a massive scale without paying a cent to the original developers. Doesn't even have to be a new actor, Amazon could spin-off a separate experimental organization for that purpose.
If that were to happen, could another license solve the problem?
Can't developers sue this company for false advertising ?
This started off as one thing and ended up being something else. They probably at any point did not hint about changing license in the future, just guessing.
For any open projects , couldn't dev. request for keeping the license as is or Free(or whatever relevant) before letting their code merged.
This may sound illogical to someone who is a domain expert, but this is just a dumb question from someone who has almost 0 clue on this topic.
No.
Questions for you:
1. What was advertised?
2. By who?
3. Where?
Sue is probably not the better description of the thoughts I had. Let's say, can't the developers do anything in an act of retaliation? Given that so much work came from the community.
> ... advertised
Yeah. Wrong choice of word. Using one kind of license to get the attention of public is in spirit akin to advertising(that was the line of thought I had). I am not doubling down on stupified things I said, I am tryina explain what I thought.
So... if I can re-ask the question , I take my dumb-comment yesterday back and ask it like this :
can't the community do in act of retaliation against these acts ?
can't we mandate community approval for license updates when the community is also participating in contribution and popularizing its usage
I do not have anything against Redis. What is going to happen to the future of FOSS and software in general , if once open(open source and Libre) projects end up walled or proprietary etc.
We need new licenses that let developers get more of the pie because no one is benefiting from the GPL in the age of cloud computing. Who cares that Linux is open source when I'm locked in aws and can never leave? What does it matter to users when their data is stolen to train Ai models and they don't even know what's in it?