These people are giving you code. You can use it, you just can't compete with them using the tool they made and that they're giving you for free.
The reason people want this last freedom is because they want to compete with the authors using the authors' own hard work. That's really lame.
Open source purism - especially for non-viral MIT and BSD licenses - is how Google and Microsoft and Amazon stole from the commons and turned it against us.
Google Chrome fucked up the web. AWS lifted Redis and Elasticsearch and makes hundreds of millions a quarter on managed versions, whereas the authors see none of that upside.
Or WP Engine, which basically lifted WordPress wholesale and gives absolutely nothing back.
We should all adopt FAIR SOURCE [1].
Fair source prevents people from taking your hard work and competing with you, but it enables your audience and your customers to use your software and modify it without restriction EXCEPT that they can't turn around and sell it in a way that competes with you.
The biggest abusers of open source certainly have a metric horse load of unavailable sources.
I 100% commend CC-BY-SA-NC and other fair source licenses. These are sustainable efforts.
If you're going to use open source, at least make it AGPL / GPLv3 so your contribution doesn't get metabolized into a completely non-free product.
> Or WP Engine, which basically lifted WordPress wholesale and gives absolutely nothing back.
I understand (tho not agree with you) up until this point. Don’t forget Wordpress was not originally Wordpress, you would say they “basically lifted b2/cafepress wholesale and gave nothing back”. Wordpress wouldn’t exist otherwise.
> Open source purism - especially for non-viral MIT and BSD licenses - is how Google and Microsoft and Amazon stole from the commons and turned it against us.
So why don't you advocate for Free Software which has always worked in the interest of the commons and provided the GPL as a way to combat this, instead of something else that isn't free and restricts the freedom of users more than a weak license?
Because before your know it your very much open source company called Prusa will end up being competed with by subsidized stuff from the east based on your own work.
> It's not my problem if someone from the Big Red East does something with my work as long as they share it too.
They also don't always do that. Look at the super popular BOOX e-ink notebooks. 100% in violation of the GPL, and has been for years, yet available to buy in common retailers such as Best Buy.
These are edging out popular devices, such as reMarkable, which are GPL compliant.
Ideally, yes, but ideals go out the window when your direct competitor is being unfairly subsidized, selling their products at a loss to steal your lunch and you realize that your continued good will on the software side will be the end of your existence.
> I 100% commend CC-BY-SA-NC and other fair source licenses. These are sustainable efforts.
Funnily enough, the CC BY-SA-NC is not a fair source license, as it doesn’t include a provision for delayed open source publication. It is quite important, actually:
> DOSP ensures that if a Fair Source company goes out of business, or develops its products in an undesired direction, the community or another company can pick up and move forward. Will this be meaningful in practice? Again, time will tell. – https://fair.io/about/
These people are giving you code. You can use it, you just can't compete with them using the tool they made and that they're giving you for free.
The reason people want this last freedom is because they want to compete with the authors using the authors' own hard work. That's really lame.
Open source purism - especially for non-viral MIT and BSD licenses - is how Google and Microsoft and Amazon stole from the commons and turned it against us.
Google Chrome fucked up the web. AWS lifted Redis and Elasticsearch and makes hundreds of millions a quarter on managed versions, whereas the authors see none of that upside.
Or WP Engine, which basically lifted WordPress wholesale and gives absolutely nothing back.
We should all adopt FAIR SOURCE [1].
Fair source prevents people from taking your hard work and competing with you, but it enables your audience and your customers to use your software and modify it without restriction EXCEPT that they can't turn around and sell it in a way that competes with you.
The biggest abusers of open source certainly have a metric horse load of unavailable sources.
I 100% commend CC-BY-SA-NC and other fair source licenses. These are sustainable efforts.
If you're going to use open source, at least make it AGPL / GPLv3 so your contribution doesn't get metabolized into a completely non-free product.
[1] https://fair.io/