alt Hacker NewsI thought so, too, at first. But there's a crucial difference: With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying. With the Bear license, Bear's competition just cannot offer the software as a service. It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS to me, but Stallman would disagree. He has made it clear that there should be no restrictions on use.
Replies
> Bear's competition just cannot offer the software as a service. It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS
I don't see how, there is nothing in the spirit of FOSS by doing that.
> With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying.
Technically true, but in practice almost every tech company forbids GPL code. I bet if you re-read your employment contract closely you'll find that you agreed not to introduce any GPL code into the company's codebases.
(Edited for clarity).
> With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying
Any examples when AGPL was used successfully by competitors? Typically every company prohibits using this licence.
> It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS to me
From the license at <https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/998e87263248...>:
"You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality"
Given that the exclusive purpose of the Software in question is to implement a managed service for its users' hosting needs, I'm having trouble understanding how anyone could take the position that this is "mostly in the spirit of FOSS".
The license might as well say, "You just can't use this."