This license has the peculiarity that any software implementation requires you to offer the source code, even if you only plan to use it privately. This makes it a stronger license than the AGPL in terms of copyleft. If the AGPL already scares away almost all companies, the SOWPL scares away almost everyone.
My question is, what would happen if free and/or open source software had the SOWPL? Would projects have to be forked? Would free and open source software die? Would we have to start from scratch again or hire lawyers to avoid problems?
I would like to know your response to this fictional scenario.
My question is, what would happen if free and/or open source software had the SOWPL?
For existing projects, that would only be possible if all contributors would agree to re-license their code. And unless there are compelling advantages for every one to do that, this is not going to happen.
This is diluting the Foss moment more than others. GPL and AGPL are more than sufficient in my opinion.
Well it wouldn’t be free software, because the requirement to publish source code publicly is at odds with the free software definition; the freedom to do something is not an obligation to do it. Copyleft simply means that if you choose to distribute the software, that you must do so under the terms you received it.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#Watcom
But, suppose the free software definition was written with this requirement in mind - as other commenters said it would be untenable, and potentially hazardous if you are using the software in a hostile environment.
No, because it has a “termination clause”, where if Watcom is suing you you can’t use the software anymore while you are
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybase_Open_Watcom_Public_License
See the first bit, and the linked discussion by Debian developers.
What does that mean exactly? If I’m using your SOWPL program in a coffee shop and someone leans over my shoulder and asks for the source code I have to bluetooth it to them?
IANAL, but I feel that coffee shop case would not be different if the software were under AGPL… if you are providing a service to other people, even if “the other people” are the customers to your shop, it could be argued that under the terms of the AGPL (not to be confused with GPL) they should have the right to see the source of the service that they are making use of.
But if the SOWPL requirement really does apply to private code that isn’t providing service to others, the implication would be that even if you are the only user (no coffee shop customer), and even if you are the only one who knows about it, you would still need to make the source code public in some way… which I feel this is very impractical and probably unenforceable anyway.
I meant as a patron of the shop, using the software on my personal device for personal reasons
Ah sorry, I misunderstood completely, I didn’t read it right. For some reason I thought you were talking about the router / wifi service being SOWPL.
Or maintain a repos. Which would force people to create an account on one of the free VCS servers, pay for an account on a non-free one, or run their own.
To my knowledge, there has been some discussion regarding the AGPL as to whether using software through a network even creates the kind of legal relationship between provider and client such that the client has standing to request the source code. I assume similar discussions would crop up regarding the SOWPL.
“Hey dude are you running a SOWsense router in your homelab?”
“No I just wrote something from scratch”
“ah ok”
