Software using the commons clause is not open source

[ddevault]

Hello! Your repositories, website, and documentation refer to your offerings as "open source", which is defined by the OSD. However, the use of the Commons Clause prevents your software from meeting this definition. Please update your language or, preferrably, remove this clause from your licenses.

[svarlamov]

Thanks for opening up this issue as it's something we have been looking at since the various discussions on HN garnered such a tremendous response... Reading your post on HN and the plethora of comments, it's clear that there's a lot of disagreement about the use of the Commons Clause for software projects that make their source available to the public.

First of all, I agree (and the Commons Clause project also makes clear) that it is not an open source license as defined by the OSD traditionally. I believe it's more aptly-named 'source-available' software and this is something that we will provide clarification on in this repo and on our website as far as which portions of our platform and courseware are released under which licenses. I also think that it's important to note that the Creative Commons (yeah the naming part is one of the biggest issues...) also has a flavour with a strict non-commercial use clause -- which is essentially analogous to what the Commons Clause does. It is a very popular licensing option for content that the community appreciates because it promotes free content that may be used for educational purposes. Separately, I would like to note that we release projects under both the Apache v2 license with the Commons Clause restriction and the original Apache v2 unrestricted license.

That being said, I believe that the FOSS community has almost entirely lost sight of the fact that the way software is operated, distributed, and monetized has evolved dramatically over time -- yet the OSS licenses remain largely unchanged. Originally -- and to this day -- an innovative copy-left license like AGPL still attracts severe animosity from the community and the unfortunate truth is that in the world of AWS (and AWS-like businesses), AGPL no longer works anyway. To this end, maintainers will continue to explore realistic solutions that allow contributions, available source code, and sustainable business models.

For these reasons, we avoided AGPL and instead utilize commons clause and creative commons with the commercial use restriction from the beginning to ensure that we build a sustainable, transparent, and free education ecosystem. This is in sharp contrast to the vast majority of businesses (and even non-profits) that contribute absolutely nothing to open source, do not share their source, and do not allow contributions. That's why the commons clause is indisputably the more favourable option -- and in my opinion, strikes a great balance between Apache v2-like licenses and proprietary software. In the event that a clearer license with noncommercial use limitations becomes popular enough to use, we will continue to license various components of our system and courseware under the Apache v2-based commons clause restricted license. We will also look to more mature projects currently under commons clause to better understand potential future migration paths and updates, because licensing requires innovation -- just as any other part of a project.

[ddevault]

Thanks for taking the time to make a detailed write-up of your thoughts.

First of all, if you don't want to drop the commons clause (something well within your rights), I think you should still update the language across your docs, repos, website, etc - to remove the indications that it's open source. Since you agreed that your software is not open source, I think this seems like a reasonable ask.

Second, I appreciate and can relate to the struggles which led you to adopt the commons clause in the first place. But I think your use-case is remarkably poor - people trying to learn have copied code from their textbooks for years. Educational code is precisely the sort of code which is crying out to be available under an open source license, and I think your value-add is much lower as a consequence of using the commons clause.

And last, if you want to continue using a non-OSI license, I strongly suggest not using the commons clause to hijack a respectable license like Apache 2.0. Instead, you should make your own license which lays out your needs specifically, rather than undoing the essential freedoms granted by the Apache 2.0 license with a tacked-on clause.

[ddevault]

Hi @svarlamov, this is still a problem that needs addressing. Can you please remove "open source" from your language describing your offerings?