Comment by galaxyLogic
4 years ago
I think this thread is much about shared source licenses like SSPL vs. "orthodox" open source licenses like GPL.
Based on the link below it seems to me the difference is that SSPL etc. have a clause which prevents me from making money by selling the use of the licensed software over the network for instance.
GPL puts some rather strict rules on users of copyleft software, mainly that you MUST distribute your modifications with the same license.
What I don't quite get is why adding a rule that says "if you make this software usable over the network you must make it usable for free" would be considered categorically less ethical than GPL.
GPL says you must give out your modifications for free. SSPL says you must also give out the rights to use that software for free as well.
Isn't SSPL more ethical in the sense that it requires you to give out more for free?
https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/29/the-crusade-against-open-s...
Ethics requires a framework. Just because something is free it doesn't become good. For example free heroin samples!
It's a complex problem to even phrase the question of what do we mean by having a healthy software/IT ecosystem. Do simply count the number of users? GDP of the Internet? Number of git repos? Naturally those doesn't even begin to capture the self-balancing dynamics we are after. We want to encourage folks to start new ventures, but also to give back. But by giving back what if they eliminate old ventures? (Eg. Google "giving back" Chrome might make the Firefox venture non-viable.) How can we describe healthy competition? (It'd be good if the browser market wouldn't be cross-financed from ads, but - let's say - every user would tell their ISP to direct some of their subscription fee to one of the browser vendors.) Okay, but what does this have to do with licenses!? Yeah, it's a fairly hard problem.
Good questions for discussion. There seems to be a commonly held or propagated assumption that GPL good other licenses un-ethical.