Maybe I need to revisit that part. My key point in other words is: restrictions are bad: In one moment they are intended to work pro open source, the next they work anti Open Source, by wrongfully claiming Open Source work for some exclusive commercial interests of a single entity.
I don’t understand how the AGPL claims open source work for a single entity? My understanding is that it insists that all users be able to download the modified source code, similar to how the GPL insists that all users of a compiled binary should be able to obtain the source code.
did you really think the powers that be are gonna let us think we're still free? freedom to invent and produce we are not deserving of, because it takes away from dishonest shadow elite who only know how to profit from destruction and sowing chaos. don't you get it? they hate that we're free to thrive without them!
If you don't like a project's license, that strikes me as a "you" problem. Projects follow their own goals and they might not align with yours or your business' goals. You're always free to write your own software.
If the possibility of future license changes bothers you (and there are legit reasons why it might) then by all means, do NOT sign a copyright assignment.
If people contributed for example under a MIT license without further contractual agreements, then licenses can't be simply changed by the main maintainer. This it is not a "me" problem.
Also it just means that people should for example now contribute here:
* OpenSearch(https://opensearch.org/) instead of elasticsearch.
* OpenTofu (https://opentofu.org/) instead of Terraform.
> "Enshittification" describes the process by which something becomes degraded or corrupted.
I feel like many get this wrong, it’s not just “when things get worse”, the term was coined specifically around the phenomenon of investor-owned companies putting profit ahead of user values, leading to a degradation of service, combined with platform stickiness keeping users locked in.
That isn’t what’s happening here, if anything selling open source code without contributing back more closely aligns with enshittification, which is what these licenses prevent.
This is really a conversation around positive vs negative freedom. Is your freedom to profit off my code greater than my freedom to benefit from your modifications of my code?
11 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 30.4 ms ] threadLumping the AGPL in with the Elastic license feels intellectually dishonest.
If the possibility of future license changes bothers you (and there are legit reasons why it might) then by all means, do NOT sign a copyright assignment.
Also it just means that people should for example now contribute here: * OpenSearch(https://opensearch.org/) instead of elasticsearch. * OpenTofu (https://opentofu.org/) instead of Terraform.
I feel like many get this wrong, it’s not just “when things get worse”, the term was coined specifically around the phenomenon of investor-owned companies putting profit ahead of user values, leading to a degradation of service, combined with platform stickiness keeping users locked in.
That isn’t what’s happening here, if anything selling open source code without contributing back more closely aligns with enshittification, which is what these licenses prevent.
This is really a conversation around positive vs negative freedom. Is your freedom to profit off my code greater than my freedom to benefit from your modifications of my code?