Lets setup our very own locally hosted LLM using the the GTP-OSS! Then we will setup OpenWebUI and NetBird to access it with a familiar interface from anywhere in the world!
The OSI definition doesn't allow that kind of restriction, mainly because it's all about keeping software as free and open as possible.
But the thing is, commercial open source companies play a huge role in making great open source tools, especially ones you can self-host. Without them, a lot of the software we rely on wouldn't even exist. People often push back when these companies change their licenses, but they forget the reality. Big cloud providers can make tons of money off open source projects without giving anything back. That's a tough spot for the folks.
I'm sure that in the nearest future we will have some COSS licenses :) Well, as an open source contributor I hope so
SSPL is appealing for business but it is not open source. That is a deal breaker for us. We want to remain open source under a license that is recognized as open source.
SSPL is open source by every definition. The OSI rejected it, but their explanation for why boils down to "neener neener" (it's not backed by any facts). Most other organizations haven't bothered to take a position because no notable software uses it and it's not worth the hassle to evaluate (mongodb and redis have better alternatives so nobody cares about them).
late addition: the OSI is a consortium of software and cloud companies; the ones whose business model is ruined by SSPL. They aren't neutral and we probably shouldn't let them be the arbiters of what counts as open source.
Foundations run in a more non-profit, community-oriented way include the FSF, EFF, and Debian, none of which made any significant comment. Debian has excluded SSPL software, but their criteria for inclusion are stricter than simply "is it open source?" and they announced it was simpler to replace them with their superior non-SSPL equivalents than to actually tackle the question.
Going from tailscale in the cloud -> self-hosting netbird required a richer mental model so I had to learn more about routing, why ZTNA is better, what is OIDC, etc
I do think that netbird's documentation is easier to read than tailscale's, but the tone does still assume a solid foundational networking background in places.
My uneducated guess is that the product is appealing to networking professionals, but a growing number of current/former tailscale users that are otherwise new to networking, but familiar w/ self-hosting. With the latter group, there's a steeper learning curve (that would also be there for headscale or most other self-hosted mesh VPN solution fwiw)
It is also an example of why I, as an end user, prefer FOSS licenses. The possibility of forking. The redistribution clauses there do not prevent forks, but definitely make them less likely, so you remain dependent on a single supplier.
The problem is that it creates a lot of uncertainty. For example, with this license, what usage is commercial? Can you distribute it to customers who buy other things from you? Can you offer services related to it - e.g. can you install it for a customer?
If you modify the software under what terms are your modifications distributed? Do they have to be distributed under the same terms? There is not transfer of copyright so the original authors cannot distribute the modified version commercially as part of their enterprise edition, that means that every modified version is a fork that cannot be merged back in?
As I said in another comment discouraging forks is a disadvantage for users as it leaves you dependant on one supplier.
The AGPL achieves the aim of deterring the likes of Amazon from providing the software as a service (at least without contributing their changes back, in practice the will not use it at all) without these sorts of problems.
In order to safeguard the long-term innovation, sustainability, and collaborative spirit of NetBird, we are switching to the AGPLv3 license - ensuring it remains a powerful, community-driven resource for decades to come.
