undefined | Better HN

0 pointsresiros9mo ago0 comments

> For the flagship product of a company, especially a VC-funded company, not starting open source is the ethical thing to do.

I can't even..

Seriously, I don't understand where your argument is coming from. Because, if you look at it from the greater good perspective, commercial open-source is one of the only venues to build high quality software that can be freely self-hosted, modified and built-upon. Yet, you basically push for people building closed source software, due to what I understand is dogmatic believe of what open-source should mean.

> If you make a license that actually discriminates on user or use case, then it's not open source.

Based on a definition, bought and sponsored by the hyperscaler lobbies. Why the hell would discriminating against hyperscaller selling the product makes it non "open-source". 99.9999% users of open-source are not hyperscaler wanting to host and sell the product and will get value from the project.

0 comments

jchw9mo ago

Firstly, no it wasn't. The history of the open source definition and OSI are interesting, including hijacking a term that was already in use, but the hyperscalers had nothing to do with it. I'll avoid restating Wikipedia, it's enough to say that's not right.

Secondly, you can call it whatever you want but "open source" licenses that discriminate against user and use case are useless. Even if I just want to use something like a data structure implementation from your "open source" release in some unrelated project, I now have to inherit all of this baggage about your competitors. That just doesn't make any sense. The endgame of that is an ecosystem of open source that ultimately serves absolutely nobody except for maybe startup PR needs.

resirosOP9mo ago

> The endgame of that is an ecosystem of open source that ultimately serves absolutely nobody except for maybe startup PR needs.

We self-host n8n, which by definition not open-source, and love it. It serves us. Not just n8n PR. That is the case for almost all self served products for non-commercial reasons

1 more reply

Spivak9mo ago

There is clearly a tension here where a bunch of people want to call their software open source without actually believing in what open source actually means. And this is absurd because it is betraying the fact that it's a marketing term. It seems like a bunch of startups realize that if they're trying to market to certain kinds of developers, if the software isn't open source, they won't touch it.

You seem to believe that we shouldn't create closed source software but at the same time directly advocating for it—that's what it is that's what you're describing. If you want a more practical and less idealistic reason why it sucks when software companies prevent people like AWS from using their software, it's because the actual users of your software, the customers of AWS, wish to pay AWS to host it for them. They would like to hire the lovely folks who work at AWS to host and manage the software for them and the license prevents that. You are preventing your users from doing what they want with the software. And that's the rub, that's why it's important to not discriminate based off of use.

echelon9mo ago

Open source means Amazon pillages you and takes your margin. Period.

That just isn't going to work anymore.

The hyperscalers know this and they want you to keep building software this way. They'll write a managed version of your thing and collect all your money.

Fair source would be "customers can use this in an unlimited way as long as they don't sell a managed version".

That's what we need to do. Carve out the ability to make money for the originators doing the work.

Open source has turned us all into serfs working on giant kingdoms we don't own.

NOTE ALSO, the OSI has been so corporate captured that their definition of open source AI is not at all open. You shouldn't trust them at all.

1 more reply

bruce5119mo ago

>> There is clearly a tension here where a bunch of people want to call their software open source without actually believing in what open source actually means.

So much this. If Open Source is a marketing term then companies are free to call whatever they do "Open Source" and the term becomes meaningless. You may as well call the software "Free Range".

On the other hand if Open Source is a defined thing, built around a specific definition, and the 4 freedoms, and so on, (hint: it is) then the marketing term could lead you places you don't want to go.

So there's a generation of programmers who want to "redefine" Open Source to suit their preferences. Dilute the definition until it's meaningless. I'm strongly against this.

To be clear everyone is welcome to use any license, with any restriction they like. But if it doesn't conform to the OSI definition don't call it Open Source.

Stop trying to turn a technical specification into a generic marketing term.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

jchw9mo ago

resirosOP9mo ago

> The endgame of that is an ecosystem of open source that ultimately serves absolutely nobody except for maybe startup PR needs.

We self-host n8n, which by definition not open-source, and love it. It serves us. Not just n8n PR. That is the case for almost all self served products for non-commercial reasons

1 more reply

Spivak9mo ago

echelon9mo ago

Open source means Amazon pillages you and takes your margin. Period.

That just isn't going to work anymore.

The hyperscalers know this and they want you to keep building software this way. They'll write a managed version of your thing and collect all your money.

Fair source would be "customers can use this in an unlimited way as long as they don't sell a managed version".

That's what we need to do. Carve out the ability to make money for the originators doing the work.

Open source has turned us all into serfs working on giant kingdoms we don't own.

NOTE ALSO, the OSI has been so corporate captured that their definition of open source AI is not at all open. You shouldn't trust them at all.

1 more reply

bruce5119mo ago

>> There is clearly a tension here where a bunch of people want to call their software open source without actually believing in what open source actually means.

So much this. If Open Source is a marketing term then companies are free to call whatever they do "Open Source" and the term becomes meaningless. You may as well call the software "Free Range".

So there's a generation of programmers who want to "redefine" Open Source to suit their preferences. Dilute the definition until it's meaningless. I'm strongly against this.

To be clear everyone is welcome to use any license, with any restriction they like. But if it doesn't conform to the OSI definition don't call it Open Source.

Stop trying to turn a technical specification into a generic marketing term.

2 more replies

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse