The author omits that the SSPL doesn’t work for the stated purpose in the article, MongoDB, or Elastic. (As discussed before: No need to accept for use. Not practical to comply with when accepted.)
The ACSL also doesn’t work for its stated purpose: As a simplification take capitalist as someone setting terms for workers where that someone controls more than 50% of the capital. Lets for example take a manufacturer of clothes who needs software to run the cutting machine for cloth before sewing. They create a company that is fully worker owned, then rent all the machines to that company and provides any other capital they need to operate under the renters conditions. Such a company is clearly operating under terms set by a capitalist, but is able to use the software under this license. The authors of the ACSL seem to recognize this. It seems to be more intended as art than for purpose.
Many licenses that say they want to be better than open source for some purpose, fail at being fit for that purpose, even more than one of the established license would. I don’t think that would be inherent in such a goal. Though some goals are much more complex to create mechanisms for than others, so that is a reason why people who are serious about such goals usually don’t start with a copyright license.
Even with its holes the AGPL might still be better than the ACSL, if your intention is to ward off capitalists, as it has a share alike requirement, which the ACSL lacks. Having a license that plugs the SaaS-wraps-FLOSS loophole of the AGPL seems worthwhile either way.
Previously, to save on rehashing.
The author omits that the SSPL doesn’t work for the stated purpose in the article, MongoDB, or Elastic. (As discussed before: No need to accept for use. Not practical to comply with when accepted.)
The ACSL also doesn’t work for its stated purpose: As a simplification take capitalist as someone setting terms for workers where that someone controls more than 50% of the capital. Lets for example take a manufacturer of clothes who needs software to run the cutting machine for cloth before sewing. They create a company that is fully worker owned, then rent all the machines to that company and provides any other capital they need to operate under the renters conditions. Such a company is clearly operating under terms set by a capitalist, but is able to use the software under this license. The authors of the ACSL seem to recognize this. It seems to be more intended as art than for purpose.
Many licenses that say they want to be better than open source for some purpose, fail at being fit for that purpose, even more than one of the established license would. I don’t think that would be inherent in such a goal. Though some goals are much more complex to create mechanisms for than others, so that is a reason why people who are serious about such goals usually don’t start with a copyright license.
Even with its holes the AGPL might still be better than the ACSL, if your intention is to ward off capitalists, as it has a share alike requirement, which the ACSL lacks. Having a license that plugs the SaaS-wraps-FLOSS loophole of the AGPL seems worthwhile either way.