this post was submitted on 17 Aug 2023
28 points (91.2% liked)

Technology

59574 readers
3476 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lps2@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

What's this community's take?

Personally, I find non-commercial, source-available licenses consistent with the community-driven aspect of open-source and less restrictive than more aggressive copy-left licenses like GPL. I find that it allows persons, groups, and corporations to pursue additional business models other than support/services to monetize their work while still ensuring that individuals in the community are able to benefit from the work the sponsor and others are doing.

I understand the concerns this raises especially for the use of open-source tools in the commercial space and hope these source-available licenses are used sparingly and strategically (like in situations like Elastic where Amazon was profiting off Elastic while competing with them and ultimately not contributing back to the project which put the project's funding at risk)

[–] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I tend to prefer the GPL because I don't know what good "source available" does for anyone beyond an audit. If I want to have someone fix a bug - I probably can't with "source available", and the overhead in figuring out if something is a use not liked by the vendor is an unnecessary headache for me.

So... in this case, for me I'd treat a no-commercial use, source available, as functionally the same as a proprietary license like Microsofts.

[–] lps2@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I take it you're responding from the lens of using this software in a corporate setting? Otherwise there is functionally no difference in the license vs OSI-compatible open-source licenses unless I'm missing something big which very well could be the case

[–] jmp242@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Well, yes. I doubt there's massive demand for HashiCorps tools for random home users.

[–] iluminae@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago

Most of the freak out I have seen I interpret as: "license says we can't use it while competing with you but that has no real definition"

To me, it seems like an acceptable license, especially since development is happening on GitHub and they take PRs. Also the feature in the license where it reverts back to MPL after 4y is a nice security against the company doing anything else crazy restrictive - as you can plan on falling back to that version as a nuclear option.