@KarlHeinzHasliP
> workadventu.re is the best matrix front end

This does look cool. Code is under AGPLv3, but they seem to think they can simultaneously give full permission for reuse *and* revoke some of those uses;

https://workadventu.re/faq/what-is-the-license-of-the-self-hosted-version-of-workadventure/

The Commons Clause is a dead duck legally when apply to v3 GNU licenses, so feel free to ignore it;

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/protecting-free-software-against-confusing-additional-restrictions

#AGPL #CommonsClause #WorkAdventure

What is the license of the self-hosted version of WorkAdventure? | WorkAdventure

The self-hosted version of WorkAdventure is distributed under the AGPL v3 license modified by the Commons Clause. It means the source code is available (on Github). Because it is based on the AGPL license, you can freely: Use the software as you wish Change the software as you wish If you redistribute the software or […]

WorkAdventure

Because the #GPL #License text is added to the top and the #CommonsClause is added afterwards #github considers the project #GPLv3 software.

I’m amazed GitHub doesn’t have better licensing monitoring tools. This makes automated license tracking pretty iffy in my book.

The #CommonsClause pollutes the #FOSS #commons. It creates new hazards for software users to navigate.

It's /especially/ confusing when nonsensically combined with a #GPL family license like #AGPLv3.

#FreeSoftware #OpenSource
https://github.com/thecodingmachine/workadventure/issues/2317

License unclear due to formal errors · Issue #2317 · thecodingmachine/workadventure

The license is unclear at the moment (e.g. in https://github.com/thecodingmachine/workadventure/blob/develop/front/LICENSE.txt) because the "Common Clause" speaks about "The Software...

GitHub

One that comes to mind is FOSSA. They're a venture capital backed startup that offers "Audit-Grade Open Source Dependency Protection".

They also are the originators of the "#CommonsClause" #OpenSource license rider that adds confusing restrictions that make software no longer Open Source.
https://commonsclause.com/

Commons Clause License

Commons Clause License

Eww, #WorkAdventure is licensed under #CommonsClause (put on top of AGPL), which makes it non-free software in total. https://github.com/thecodingmachine/workadventure/issues/523

That really is unfortunate.

License info missing · Issue #523 · thecodingmachine/workadventure

It is not a tech issue, but important to know for a number of people. Currently there is no license in this project mentioned. This means it is not Open Source. Please clarify the license of the pr...

We need to talk licenses. Recently discovered #commonsclause through the #n8n project (big fan). I'm quite ideological but I really dig the pragmatism behind this license. The code is still #opensource, accessible and extendible. That's what I want from a product I need to trust. If the owner wants my contributions but doesn't want me making money from it… I understand that! Yet I read a lot of criticism about this license.

What am I not seeing?

Like #FairSource, and the #CommonsClause, #LicenseZero is yet another attempt at mususing the term #OpenSource to describe the software license equivalent of the #NoCommercialUse licenses in the #CreativeCommons suite:
https://licensezero.com/
License Zero

gainful open software development

@djsumdog true, there is the #CommonsClause, and the use of the #PeerProductionLicense on software, both of which are motivated by similar concerns to the NC license, but I would argue they have very different implications (I know
@wolftune disagrees with that, but there you go)
@CharredStencil @LWFlouisa
A sober analysis of the #CommonsClause license from a business perspective. Applying the #
https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2018/09/10/tragedy-of-the-commons-clause/
Tragedy of the Commons Clause

For those who would develop software and sell it, open source is something of a conundrum. On the one hand, as Mike Olson has noted, you can't win with a

tecosystems