Bear is now source-available (herman.bearblog.dev)

Article summary

The creator of Bear, a blogging platform, has changed its license from MIT to a version of copyleft based on the Elastic License, which prohibits providing the software as a hosted or managed service. This decision was made to prevent competitors from forking the project and offering it as a service, which has happened in the past. The creator wants to ensure the platform's longevity and commitment to its users. The new license still allows for other uses of the software, such as learning from the code and auditing its security.

Main themes

• Open-source licensing
• Software as a service
• Copyleft and Elastic License
• Free-ride competition
• FOSS principles

What commenters say

• The AGPL license could have been used to achieve similar goals, but it may not be effective in preventing companies from offering the software as a service due to potential loopholes.
• Some companies prohibit the use of AGPL code in their projects, making it a less viable option for open-source software.
• The new license may not be in the spirit of FOSS, as it restricts the use of the software as a hosted or managed service, which could be seen as limiting its potential.
• The creator's decision to change the license is understandable, given the history of competitors forking the project and offering it as a service, but it may have unintended consequences for the open-source community.
• The distinction between using open-source code in a project and offering it as a service is important, and companies should be aware of the implications of using certain licenses.
• The use of copyleft licenses, such as the AGPL, can be effective in ensuring that changes made to the software are contributed back to the original project, but it may not be suitable for all use cases.