That's the argument that the Commons Clause authors made — that they should be able to sponge off of the goodwill of FOSS community. It's outrageous, offensive, and I strongly suspect a losing legal argument so long as the original license name is a defensible trademark.
Consider the Apache Software License version 2.0. "Apache" is a registered trademark held by the Apache Software Foundation in the US and other jurisdictions. The Commons Clause is not additive, it is antithetical to the values of the ASF and directly undermines the ASF's mission. Calling something the "Apache License with the Commons Clause" damages the interests of the ASF by introducing a confusingly named product into the market.
What I have more questions about are other licenses where there's not necessarily an obvious trademark held by a willing defender. Can you call your deceptive fake FOSS license the "Common Development and Distribution License"? I'm not so sure about trademark defense there — the only option might be social pressure.
I would reduce "the Commons Clause [...] is antithetical to the values of the ASF" to "_one_ of the values".
As an example of other values untouched by the Common Clause, the Apache License 2.0 includes: "(4.b) You must cause any modified files to carry prominent notices stating that You changed the files;". The values here are correct attribution of work, and protecting consumers by making changes easily spotable.
Please do not collapse all open source licenses into a single point value, it does them no favor. And if you really have to, then at least use the one about open access to the source code. The one in the name.
Yes, the Common Clause violates point 6 of the opensource.org/osd - but there are 10 points on that list. And the OSI is not the be-all-end-all of defining open source, even if it sues people for using the word, it not the one and only source of truth, not some religion of 10 commandments that wants its followers to harass heretics.
And this is important, because this whole discussion is as old as open source. Besides commercial use with negligible own contribution as seen in the Common Clause, there are other well known examples of restrictions people added to their works in spite of point 6, like a "no military use" clause that was quite popular for some time. That prevented good software from being distributed by Debian, because of Debians choice to only include software that complies with all of its ideals.
People first and foremost have the freedom to license their original work however they want. Some restrictions, such as trademarks, may apply. You have a point with trademarks and naming a modified license in a confusing way, but i think you are overreacting when you call the Common Clause "outrageous, offensive" and "to sponge off of the goodwill of FOSS". Yes, the license that is "AGPLv3 + Common Clause" may never become OSI approved, but for the consumer the modification is easy to spot and understand. And that actually does follow an important value of the FOSS community.
Ironically one that is not part of the 10 but included in the Apache License 2.0
I stand by my characterization of the Commons Clause initiative as sponging off the goodwill of the FOSS movement.
The language of the Commons Clause did not have to be attached to a derivative, trademark-abusing naming stratagem. They should have used novel, non-confusing names for their licenses from the start.
Perhaps limit your policing of others' phraseology to cases where it's clearly wrong or harmful?
The Apache Software License and the Apache Software Foundation are not the same thing. The latter is a human organisation and its values are determined by its members - some of these values are not even codified, so it may be hard for an outsider to determine them - but in this case I am inclined to agree with the GP.
The ASF promotes permissive software distribution - this includes the right to remove permissions when relicensing. However, distributing such a modified license under the Apache umbrella potentially harms that goal by muddying the meaning of "Apache licensed"
> However, distributing such a modified license under the Apache umbrella potentially harms that goal by muddying the meaning of "Apache licensed".
Exactly.
The ASF fosters a permissive ecosystem, characterized by low risk of litigation. If you attribute ALv2-licensed dependencies properly, you should feel confident that you are pretty much in the clear. If you screw up and fail to attribute, it's easy to achieve compliance — just add the attributions. You need not worry about publishing your proprietary code under a copyleft license, stripping out the ALv2 dependencies, or other more involved remedies.
This low risk environment is key to the participation of many users, especially risk-averse corporate contributors. It is a fundamental aspect of the ASF culture and mission.
The "Apache + Commons Clause" license radically undermines that, because if you are a commercial user, you may well get sued. The "Apache" name doesn't belong anywhere near a license which includes the Commons Clause.
I changed the first sentence from "please limit" to "i would reduce" as it is not my intent to "police phraseology" but to state my opinion in reaction to someone else opinion. Maybe there is some other phrase that would be even better to make the rhetoric non-violent.
I think you have still missed the important distinction between the ASF and the ASL.
Your opinion is based around your interpretation of the ASL, whereas the GP was referencing the ASF - an organisation of people, with their own shared values, that created the ASL. You have not referenced the ASF at all, only the ASL and some general concepts around FOSS, which are not particularly relevant to a discussion of the ASF's goals and values.
Either the ASL includes values the ASF does not hold, which would be very strange, or the example of a value enshrined in the ASL speaks for the values of the ASF as well.
