undefined | Better HN

0 pointsMacha2y ago0 comments

You're free to decide open source isn't working for you. (Well, assuming you're not using any open source software that has decided on viral licenses because that's the payment _they_ expect)

You're not free to decide your source available model is open source and reap the marketing benefits of open source without the costs.

0 comments

pydry2y ago

I think these projects should just dual license as AGPL and BPL/EPL.

That way all the "it's not really technically open source" complainers couldn't day that its not technically open source.

It wouldnt substantively change anything of course, but that's somewhat the point. BPL/EPL/SSPL was always fully within the spirit of open source, it just pissed off the same large corporations who also can't stand the AGPL.

MachaOP2y ago

I'm way more fine with AGPL (without CLA). That's perfectly within the spirit of open source, as it doesn't privilege one group of users over another.

BPL, EPL, SSPL are all "not open source", and AGPL+CLA is "we're setting up for a bait and switch with not open source versions".

pydry2y ago

I find it curious that Microsoft doesnt get more shit for demanding a CLA, especially given that embrace, extend, extinguish is in their DNA.

1 more reply

bawolff2y ago

> AGPL+CLA is "we're setting up for a bait and switch with not open source versions".

Which is fine imo as long as the moment they pull the bait/switch they stop calling it open source (and others can fork at that point)

1 more reply

davidgerard2y ago

> BPL/EPL/SSPL was always fully within the spirit of open source

It literally is not, and they only exist in order to not be.

pydry2y ago

They exist so that you can continue to use hashicorp tools in your business for free and look at/change their source code like you would any other software.

The one restriction is that you can't compete with their hosted services using their software. Which 99% of people who use their software have zero interest in.

The "it's not fair! it's not real open source!" narrative is pumped up by companies like Amazon that feel entitled to use their monopoly power to leech value from these companies by selling paid versions of their products.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

pydry2y ago

I think these projects should just dual license as AGPL and BPL/EPL.

That way all the "it's not really technically open source" complainers couldn't day that its not technically open source.

MachaOP2y ago

I'm way more fine with AGPL (without CLA). That's perfectly within the spirit of open source, as it doesn't privilege one group of users over another.

BPL, EPL, SSPL are all "not open source", and AGPL+CLA is "we're setting up for a bait and switch with not open source versions".

pydry2y ago

I find it curious that Microsoft doesnt get more shit for demanding a CLA, especially given that embrace, extend, extinguish is in their DNA.

1 more reply

bawolff2y ago

> AGPL+CLA is "we're setting up for a bait and switch with not open source versions".

Which is fine imo as long as the moment they pull the bait/switch they stop calling it open source (and others can fork at that point)

1 more reply

davidgerard2y ago

> BPL/EPL/SSPL was always fully within the spirit of open source

It literally is not, and they only exist in order to not be.

pydry2y ago

They exist so that you can continue to use hashicorp tools in your business for free and look at/change their source code like you would any other software.

The one restriction is that you can't compete with their hosted services using their software. Which 99% of people who use their software have zero interest in.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse