I am glad they tried. I know there's lots of cynical stuff on the internet, but realistically the open source progress on stuff like Terraform or similar wouldn't have happened if these companies didn't try an alternative.
I'm not sure what people want these companies to do. If there's no money, if the idea didn't work, they need to pivot to something that does work.
It's well past time for getting rid of licenses that say "you can do what you like with this software", and replace them with licenses that allows you to sell as long as the original project gets a cut, without taking on any of the liability.
The idea that you just mark your work as MIT/GPL/CC0 may have made open source more popular, but it also ruins lives when that thing you worked on for years and never made you anything makes a random drive-by asshole more than your annual salary.
We have seen maintainers burnt out. It takes work to write code.
It's also mostly pointless. If someone wants to develop features for software they pay for I guess that's their choice.
>> I'm not sure what people want these companies to do.
Not rug-pull.
There were any number of things HashiCorp could have done to improve revenue generation from their products without changing the source license. When they realized they weren’t building the best SaaS version of their products, they didn’t try to improve their service. Instead they tried to run the competition out of business.
They went there several versions of their cloud products over the years, and pivoted a few times during that span
Not to rms.
That requires a CLA (as I understand it, IANAL) because you're relicensing a contributor's contribution. At the same time though, I wouldn't consider it a rugpull - contributors lose nothing here, and the open source project gains a funding mechanism (a rare thing in open source).
You can say "Steam and game consoles only allow publishing software with proprietary components", but don't blame that on GPL.
Latest versions stay fully open source while back ported fixes are a paid feature if you don't keep your software up to date. That, to me, is a win win.
Oracle is doing the same with the JDK.
Huh, what software is MS releasing under the GPL now?
And it would be very convenient for me to be able to relicense an AGPL contributor's work as if it were mine all along, like an evil genius capitalist, tee hee hee :3
But I would fork a project that tried it, and that is the attitude we should encourage.
Those aren't valid reasons for CLAs in my organizations and projects, since they do damage to AGPL as I envision it.
I wonder if there are other reasons for a genuine AGPL radical to support a CLA? Seems AGPL is good enough on its own, and most CLAs just weaken it - both technically and in a spiritual and ethical sense. Could we strengthen it instead?
> I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has made it possible for important programs to become free software.
> [..] [S]elling exceptions permits limited embedding of the code in proprietary software, but the [non-copyleft] X11 license goes even further, permitting unlimited use of the code (and modified versions of it) in proprietary software. If this doesn't make the X11 license unacceptable, it doesn't make selling exceptions unacceptable.
> I consider selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will suggest it where appropriate as a way to get programs freed.
Hyperscalers like Amazon exploit OSS projects by reselling them as a cloud service and they earn a gigantic sum in the process. But this is not a neutral thing to do - the OSS project is still responsible for maintenance! (And in many places, the "no warranty" clause seems completely disregarded - users and corporations demand bugfixes since it's a "critical library")
The most telling sentence is "Open source culture relies on trust. Trust that companies you and I helped build (even without being on the payroll) wouldn't rugpull."...
where is any trust in exploiting someone's work without giving anything back? the hyperscalers routinely break the OSS social contract, but because they abide to the letter of the licences, they get a free pass and many white knights from even the OSS community and even OSI itself.
A business model of "you can see the source, you can modify it but you can't offer it as a service or resell my work" is much more honest and trustworthy than the "develop a library, a cloud service picks it up then pressures you with PRs and issues until you permanently burn out from the whole thing"
This is partly addressed by the post - "But you know what? I'd just prefer honesty. If revenue is so dependent on selling software, just... make the software proprietary. Don't be so coy!".
This is not honesty though. Claiming that anything not party-approved.... I mean OSI-approved is not open source and it's proprietary is a very myopic thing. For users and developers, it's much more beneficial if they can see or even modify the source even if they don't have an unrestricted right to use and modify it however they want. This absolutist, black-and-white approach could potentially lead to many pieces of software becoming fully proprietary, all-rights-reserved in the future since the open source community harasses source available projects quite frequently, and not many have the patience to put up with that. And that would be a sad outcome indeed for user freedom, repairability, portability and other values RMS and the FSF dearly holds.
Should OSS solve that "problem"? Free software predates billion-dollar OSS / open-core companies, it also doesn't require the maintainer directly earn a living from it. Perhaps the era of OSS megacorps and the concomitant VC/startup dreams is setting, as these large, formerly OSS companies are rejecting OSS licenses in favor of bigger profits. To that, I say good riddance, not every useful git repository has to be incorporated.
> ...and prevent others from exploiting you in the process.
The whole point of free and open source software is anyone can use it and improve it - including Amazon and the person you hate. An OSS license is not a growth-hack for adoption: if you want to discourage Amazon from using your product, use AGPL. If you're worried others won't use your AGPL software, then you're growth-hacking.
FL/OSS will be fine between evening/weekend hackers (xz), small-to-medium companies/consultancies (Rails), and our neo-feudal tech overlords (React).
If you don't want a cyberpunk-like dystopia of megacorps controlling everything, yes. This is not just affecting the VC-funded startups' profitability but it also affects ordinary software developers' lifestyle businesses too. Sure, the core principles of OSS don't require that you'd be able to earn money from your work, but then perhaps it is OSS which is not fit for purpose, not the desire to earn money from creating software.
>if you want to discourage Amazon from using your product, use AGPL.
The AGPL is still not restrictive enough because you can resell the software without contributing anything back if you don't modify it. Stuff like the SSPL or the Commons Clause are much better to prevent that kind of exploitation.
>FL/OSS will be fine between evening/weekend hackers (xz), small-to-medium companies/consultancies (Rails), and our neo-feudal tech overlords (React).
I find the xz example especially funny because that shows how it is very much not fine. Single developer, burnt out, not getting paid a penny for his thankless work, a bunch of state-sponsored actors pressure him to hand his project over -> backdoor injected. If Lasse Collin could get support for his project, this almost certainly would not have happened.
https://xkcd.com/2347/ is very relevant here.
You’re begging the question of whether one should be able to earn a living from making free software.
Free software is not fundamentally about business or profit: it’s about ethics. It’s about the freedom of software users to use, modify and share their software.
How programmers get paid is an interesting question, but it’s not the most important question. The important one is, ‘is it ethical for a programmer to prevent his software’s users from using, inspecting, modifying and sharing modifications to the software they use?’ And the answer in my opinion is a resounding ‘no!’
In other words --- developers can not live from Open Source alone.
If all software was Open Source, there would likely be a lot fewer developers. And those that remain would be spending a lot more time and effort on survival and less time creating software.
Open Source is inherently self limiting and unsustainable. It is a utopian concept that defies the basic economic reality we are all forced to contend with.
And the really crazy part --- even the least educated manual laborer can immediately grasp that giving his work away for free invites exploitation. It may be noble and good for somebody --- but ultimately not for himself or others like him.
The funniest part is that this outcome was obvious even in the 1990s. Evangelists were begging businesses to start using FOSS with slogans like "free as in beer and free as in speech" and hailing every corporate adoption as a victory. Meanwhile, business were belching contentedly and asking for another free beer while pointedly not giving a rat's ass about giving back or software freedom.
I'm absolutely amazed that it took reality this long to catch up with FOSS.
> For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software.
> “Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free software.”
> We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source.” To make this clear, we avoid using those terms.
People in the FOSS world has been beating this drum since the very beginning. Free software was always an ideology. I get that that turns people off, just like projects wrapped up in religion and politics do, but it's the only way to ensure that stuff like this doesn't happen.
I concede that the people who champion FOSS are not always the kindest people to be around, see the response from people about Guix when I mentioned it as an alternative to Nix.
But when I was in Boston I was a card carrying member of the FSF. I went to a few libre planets, and I met some real nice people in real life who also cared about FOSS very deeply, so I know not everyone in the community is a jerk.
So much of the FOSS world blames marketing for the lack of non-technical users, routinely ignore, or even deride the prospect of prioritizing the most important factor non-technical users choosing software: usability. The people who do so dismiss interface and experience design as superfluous aesthetics. It might be true for people with a working mental model of software architecture in their back pocket, but to others, those little 'trivial' bits of prerequisite knowledge aggregate into a giant frustrating roadblock.
I have zero idea what this means and I've been on Debian since Woody
Honestly, how could that be hard to understand from the context of the discussion here?
1. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
2. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
Ok it's been a while so I don't remember the details or how it played out, but when Linux introduced a CoC, there were people who contributed to the kernel in the past that threatened to withdraw their code from the kernel, which would've been a nightmare to handle and clean up. How much power does a contributor have if my project is using a standard licence like GPL or BSD? Does the contributor hold any copyright over their code? Im not talking about rug pulls here, let's just say the contributor gets really mad at me for some reason.
So if Linus wanted to relicense the kernel under a different license than GPL2 he couldn't do it by himself without tracking down all the contributors and getting them to agree to the license change or removing the code in question which, for someting as large and with as many contributors as the kernel, would be basically impossible.
The CoC is completely different. It's not a license change but a process change. If a contributor doesn't like a new CoC or a new processs they can decide to no longer contribute in the future under that process, including no longer maintaining "their" code already in the kernel but they can't force anyone to remove it.
In terms of irrevocability, the DCO is not that different from most open source licenses who themselves claim to be perpetual. The arguments for exceptions to that being true all either apply to e.g. both the GPL and the DCO, or to neither.
Generally the consensus is that an irrevocable license grant means irrevocable, though there are some concerns about examples set by e.g. the precedent that lets artists claw back rights from record labels after 30 years.
I don't. And neither do you, judging from your last sentence:
> So, retracting the contribution may not be an option.
So what did you mean by the first one?
The license is basically a legally-binding promise not to sue, as long as you follow the rules in the license. So the general consensus is that they can't terminate the license unless you violate the license. (Though there are dissenting opinions on that.)
Also remember: Whoever owns the copyright gets to do whatever they want. The licensing security of free software, defined here as the likelihood of free software remaining free software, is proportional to the number of copyright owners involved. Changing the license requires agreement between all copyright holders, once a sizeable number of them has built up it becomes all but impossible. Therefore, anyone who asks you to assign your copyright to them should be viewed with suspicion. A true proponent of free software would want to maximize the number of copyright holders involved, not centralize the copyrights under a single entity.
Don't give things away if you care about what happens to them afterwards. So many people completely misunderstand what open source is about.
That's exactly the point I was making. My whole point was: DO NOT just give things away. That's just irrational. It brings you no profit and doesn't actually create long lasting wealth and freedom in the form of copyleft software. All it does is enable your exploitation. All it does is enrich billionaire corporations who are free to take the work of others, use it to make a killing and then laugh all the way to the bank at the suckers who made it all possible for free.
Don't just give your code away for free. Either make it proprietary all rights reserved, or make it AGPLv3. Those are the two choices. Maximum profit or maximum freedom. Either they pay you lots of money, or they adhere to the full set of conditions spelled out by the AGPLv3.
Don't just give your stuff away. Attach lots of strings to it. Strings that force others to benefit you in return for your generosity. Either by paying you lots of money or by being equally generous to you in return.
Don't just give software away. That was the point.
There is exactly one scenario where "permissive" licensing makes sense: a world without copyright. In other words, a world without licensing at all. They can copy your software and you can copy theirs. Until such a day comes that copyright is abolished though, "permissive" licensing is just nonsense, it just gives away all your leverage.
https://zedshaw.com/blog/2022-02-05-the-beggar-barons/
Trillion dollar corporations. That beg for free labor. That exploit the good will of free and open source software developers.
Here's the latest example:
the foundation started as a way for companies to band Against gpl. and they won the day Linus have up and allowed tainted kernel be the default and every device distributor moved their proprietary code to modules and rejoiced.
their focus then was on gpl3 fud because google et al have much more money than modem vendors.
It seems like there's a kind of political ideology over what "open source" even means and how it should be practiced.There's a school of thought that says we should switch everything over to viral copyleft licenses. This will "protect" the code and ensure all derivative work is always open source.
Then there's others, like myself, who believe if you want something that's truly "free and open" it should come with as few conditions as possible.
If open source products retreating from some of the "freedom" elements bothers you, then you should be focusing your ire on the megacorporations and overfunded startups who simply refuse to contribute to the financial viability of the products that sustain them.
For some reason "we" celebrate the exploitative, though, so I guess that's out.
The projects weren't as much open core as they were literal open source projects made to solve some problem the author had with other existing tooling. The open core part was injected when the startup decided it had to turn into a platform to sustain the beefy staffing budgets while they figured out how to generate revenue off something that was freely available.
I'm also reminded by a relatively recent episode of either PIMA or Freakanomics (I forget which) where Steve asks Bill Gates why charities don't pay as well as corporate gigs and Gate's response was "it's a charity".
We seem to forget that things take work. Just because someone does that work on their own time and without asking for compensation doesn't mean that they don't deserve it. It just means their more passionate.
Are you sure? (/s), because IBM mentioned "AI" no less than 10 times in their announcement of the purchase:
> AI-driven application growth … IBM's deep focus and investment in […] AI … The global excitement surrounding generative AI … HashiCorp's capabilities and talent will create a comprehensive hybrid cloud platform designed for the AI era … generative AI deployment continues to grow … IBM's commitment to […] AI innovation … today's AI revolution … AI-driven complexity … IBM is a leading provider of global […] AI, … IBM's breakthrough innovations in AI
Thankfully the press managed to delete most of those, though there were some announcement that nonetheless took the bait.
What's dead, or rather was never really that much alive is the notion of not quite so open source projects where a single corporate entity attempts to dictate the rules and actively discourages outside contributions, and people profiting from "their" source code. As a proportion of most widely used OSS software the amount of software and the number of developers involved with it is a rounding error.
There are two main problems with corporate OSS:
1) it stifles the formation of a healthy community of outside contributors. This endangers long term success of projects. The more restrictions exist (e.g. copy right transfers or aggressively anti commercial usage licenses like AGPL), the more likely it is that would be contributors will take the hint and stay away.
2) it limits growth to the strategy, financial success, and imagination/skills of just one company. Because with projects being bottle necked on the financial success of just one company and cut of from outside help, absolutely nothing happens unless that one company pays for it.
And with finances effectively supplied by VC investors interested more in IPOs and quick exits than good software, OSS is just a buzzword that goes on the investor deck and not something they actively value or appreciate. Hence legal monstrosities like BSL that make no sense whatsoever from the point of view of nurturing a healthy community of external developers. Most VC companies of course fail. That kind of is the point. And most of their restrictively licensed software projects die along with them and don't survive the implosion of these companies. Developers move onto other things and the software gets peddled to hedge-funds or companies like IBM.
The only exception to this is properly licensed open source that can simply be forked. Oracle, Redis, Red Hat, Hashicorp, Elasticsearch, etc. found that out the hard way. The answer is not getting more proprietary about OSS software and preventing forks. The software gets forked precisely because these projects are too valuable to let it rot away behind corporate pay walls. This is not a failure of open source but actually a huge success. The software will long survive the misguided corporate shenanigans. The software and community will be fine. Those companies, possibly a lot less.
I don't know what the answer is, but the OSI definition is clearly not built to withstand this era of late stage capitalism and the "hustle culture" that permeates through it.
Perhaps consider using Apache 2.0 license, section six has language that specifically addresses trademarks.
What a deal, you get to put in the time and effort AND potentially fight a legal battle when a patent troll decides to go "wouldn't it be fun if" all on your own!
> HashiCorp already did a great job pre-draining all their flavor
but their quote actually says [1]
> HashiCorp has done a good job of pre-draining any flavor it once had
The video is of Brendan Gregg, not of Bryan. Am I missing something?
If they chose to be source available from day 1, then no harm done?
Fintan Ryan has a nice write-up here: https://medium.com/@fintanr/on-ibm-acquiring-hashicorp-c9c73...
You'll see that with traditional open-source. With companies that attempt to capture the value, your customers will always hate you unless you're careful.
Of course using the Elastic license family from the beginning is one way there. The Llama license family is another way. But perhaps my favourite observed thing has to be Kong's licensing: the base thing is Apache 2.0 but when you sign a contract with them, they'll give you access to the Enterprise plugins and you can edit their source. I loved working with them.
They seem to have done a good job with value capture. I think they're leaving a lot on the table, but there is significant path dependence on what they've done, so they don't have the option any more. But good job.
There are bills to pay, donations only give so much, very few buy books from community members, consulting doesn't apply to all software, trainings even less, not everything can be a SaaS,...
If this sort of thing is interesting to you, I'm looking to expand the project listing with community support. I suspect the relicensing trend is on its way up.
I’ve been thinking the only way to truly protect freedom of individuals and of foss development is to have a dual license which is foss unless you deploy it to over 10m users or 10m revenue or belong to list of companies like the eu designated gatekeepers. In that case each project should have the latitude to decide if they will enforce terms if any. Meaning that given the needs of the developers being otherwise met they can always forego any additional requirements
As a builder that leverages them both, I'm saddened, but I get it.
