64 ms·

Wow, so many negative comments here. I for one applaud the move -- a license like this has been needed for a long time. Slightly (un)related, but I don't under

Wow, so many negative comments here. I for one applaud the move -- a license like this has been needed for a long time. Slightly (un)related, but I don't understand why in a forum full of software developers it is the consensus that all infrastructure software must be free (as in beer)? What are you guys planning to live off once that dream has finally been realised?

cookiecaper 8y ago
I agree that we need a good open-source license that limits the ability to resell. The paid support model only goes so far. If a clause like this is actually successful, we may start seeing companies that sell software (rather than support) looking to avail themselves of the benefits of open-source, which would really be a boon for everyone. Someday, I'd like to see a mandatory source deposit to get copyright protection.
- mrob 8y ago
  Like it or not, "open source software" already has a well established meaning. If your license includes restrictions on use then you need to call it by an accepted name for that kind of license, e.g. "source available" or "shared source". Anything else is simply deception.
  - cookiecaper 8y ago
    No, you only "need" to do this if you're interested in furthering the claims of license zealots, who are more interested in furthering their personal political goals than they are in allowing computer users to get access to the source code that produced a binary blob. Making "open-source" synonymous with "freeware" is a massive poison pill that has hurt the industry substantially.
marcinzm 8y ago
My reading of the comments is not that it must be free but that it must be well designed (legally) and without BS. Saying it OSS + Something when that Something makes the whole thing not OSS is disingenuous and somewhat fishy at a minimum. It's marketing BS designed to make the whole thing seem better than it is. Engineers tend to dislike marketing BS. If it's no longer OSS then that's fine but be fully honest about it. When that Something is furthermore legally ambiguous and with many open questions that also a valid complaint. Lawyers are expensive and Engineers overall dislike dealing with them. A license that requires and invites lawyers is naturally not going to go over well.
komali2 8y ago
Consulting around open source software seems to my industry-new experience how people tend to make a living around open source software. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how the core Linux folks make money? Or the organization running node?
- humbleMouse 8y ago
  Try anyone who works at a big company saving money by replacing vendor tools with custom open source solutions. There are a million ways to monetize open source, even as an individual.
mikekchar 8y ago
First question: Why has it been needed a long time? On you latter question: They don't feel that all infrastructure software must be free (as in beer). You are simply conflating the free (as in speech) with the free (as in beer) implicitly with no justification. If you are going to make money from a software development project, you need a business plan. You need a way to make money. It is absolutely true that I won't pay money for software that does not have a free software license. I've lived in that world before as a programmer. It sucks! Does that mean that I won't pay money for free software? No, it really doesn't. In fact many of the companies I have worked for in the past have spent a lot of money for free software. One company I worked for spent about $5 million dollars a year for GCC and associated tool chains (and that was in the 90's!) But the problem is that a lot of companies frankly have extremely poor business plans. Something on the order of: Write software ??? Profit Now, like I said, you can write proprietary software all you want. I won't buy it. I don't want it. It doesn't give me the ability to use it in the way that I require. What's actually slightly surprising to an old guy like me is that all of my colleagues agree with that stance. Don't want it. Not at any price. Not even free (as in beer). What that means is that "Write software --> ??? --> Profit" is just not a viable business plan. I have absolutely no problem with this. In fact, I'm happy about this. If you want to make money, you have to offer a service other than copying bits. You can charge me for writing the software. You can charge me for a service associated with the software. You can make money in other ways and enter into a kind of consortium for constructing the software so that all parties have reduced cost. I've personally even paid money for free (as in freedom) software simply because it was worth the money to make sure the authors were able to live (Note: this is not a viable business plan, but sometimes it still happens). BTW, currently the company that pays me makes money by selling Golf holidays (and spa holidays, and lately horse racing, and bicycling holidays). Most programmers work for companies like that.
striking 8y ago
>What are you guys planning to live off once that dream has finally been realised? The cool app I made with the infrastructure?
tschellenbach 8y ago
Yes it's crazy, most of the people commenting here don't contribute to open source and get paid a comfy salary because someone higher up actually charges for the things they work on. I don't know why there is such a stigma around monetizing the things you work on. These types of comments ignore the reality that you need to monetize somehow. Almost every large open source project has a monetization model.
- krschultz 8y ago
  Almost 100% of my open source contributions have been done on company time. The company makes money in some other way and we use an open source project so working on the project is not competing with the main business. That's how a ton of open source software gets written and it's why the Apache license is so popular. The hard path has been to found a company with the business model of money directly off an open source project. That's doesn't seem to work out in most cases, and the gates the companies put up to charge money piss everyone off.

cookiecaper 8y ago

I agree that we need a good open-source license that limits the ability to resell. The paid support model only goes so far. If a clause like this is actually successful, we may start seeing companies that sell software (rather than support) looking to avail themselves of the benefits of open-source, which would really be a boon for everyone. Someday, I'd like to see a mandatory source deposit to get copyright protection.

mrob 8y ago
Like it or not, "open source software" already has a well established meaning. If your license includes restrictions on use then you need to call it by an accepted name for that kind of license, e.g. "source available" or "shared source". Anything else is simply deception.
- cookiecaper 8y ago
  No, you only "need" to do this if you're interested in furthering the claims of license zealots, who are more interested in furthering their personal political goals than they are in allowing computer users to get access to the source code that produced a binary blob. Making "open-source" synonymous with "freeware" is a massive poison pill that has hurt the industry substantially.

marcinzm 8y ago

My reading of the comments is not that it must be free but that it must be well designed (legally) and without BS. Saying it OSS + Something when that Something makes the whole thing not OSS is disingenuous and somewhat fishy at a minimum. It's marketing BS designed to make the whole thing seem better than it is. Engineers tend to dislike marketing BS. If it's no longer OSS then that's fine but be fully honest about it. When that Something is furthermore legally ambiguous and with many open questions that also a valid complaint. Lawyers are expensive and Engineers overall dislike dealing with them. A license that requires and invites lawyers is naturally not going to go over well.

komali2 8y ago

Consulting around open source software seems to my industry-new experience how people tend to make a living around open source software. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how the core Linux folks make money? Or the organization running node?

humbleMouse 8y ago
Try anyone who works at a big company saving money by replacing vendor tools with custom open source solutions. There are a million ways to monetize open source, even as an individual.

mikekchar 8y ago

First question: Why has it been needed a long time? On you latter question: They don't feel that all infrastructure software must be free (as in beer). You are simply conflating the free (as in speech) with the free (as in beer) implicitly with no justification. If you are going to make money from a software development project, you need a business plan. You need a way to make money. It is absolutely true that I won't pay money for software that does not have a free software license. I've lived in that world before as a programmer. It sucks! Does that mean that I won't pay money for free software? No, it really doesn't. In fact many of the companies I have worked for in the past have spent a lot of money for free software. One company I worked for spent about $5 million dollars a year for GCC and associated tool chains (and that was in the 90's!) But the problem is that a lot of companies frankly have extremely poor business plans. Something on the order of: Write software ??? Profit Now, like I said, you can write proprietary software all you want. I won't buy it. I don't want it. It doesn't give me the ability to use it in the way that I require. What's actually slightly surprising to an old guy like me is that all of my colleagues agree with that stance. Don't want it. Not at any price. Not even free (as in beer). What that means is that "Write software --> ??? --> Profit" is just not a viable business plan. I have absolutely no problem with this. In fact, I'm happy about this. If you want to make money, you have to offer a service other than copying bits. You can charge me for writing the software. You can charge me for a service associated with the software. You can make money in other ways and enter into a kind of consortium for constructing the software so that all parties have reduced cost. I've personally even paid money for free (as in freedom) software simply because it was worth the money to make sure the authors were able to live (Note: this is not a viable business plan, but sometimes it still happens). BTW, currently the company that pays me makes money by selling Golf holidays (and spa holidays, and lately horse racing, and bicycling holidays). Most programmers work for companies like that.

striking 8y ago

>What are you guys planning to live off once that dream has finally been realised? The cool app I made with the infrastructure?

tschellenbach 8y ago

Yes it's crazy, most of the people commenting here don't contribute to open source and get paid a comfy salary because someone higher up actually charges for the things they work on. I don't know why there is such a stigma around monetizing the things you work on. These types of comments ignore the reality that you need to monetize somehow. Almost every large open source project has a monetization model.

krschultz 8y ago
Almost 100% of my open source contributions have been done on company time. The company makes money in some other way and we use an open source project so working on the project is not competing with the main business. That's how a ton of open source software gets written and it's why the Apache license is so popular. The hard path has been to found a company with the business model of money directly off an open source project. That's doesn't seem to work out in most cases, and the gates the companies put up to charge money piss everyone off.