5 ms·

The appeal to authority is to whatever authority OSI, Debian, or FSF may have, not to legal authority. Licensing lawyers often know those definitions, or at le

The appeal to authority is to whatever authority OSI, Debian, or FSF may have, not to legal authority. Licensing lawyers often know those definitions, or at least know of them. But they're terms of branding, terms of politics, not legal terms of art, and not strong trade or service marks. Granted, I think it's safe to say Commons Clause wouldn't meet the old definitions you mentioned, or please the people who wrote them. But I don't think it's my place, as a lawyer, to tell coders what "open source" should mean. As for the old definitions, I've consistently overestimated how much devs care. Frankly, I've overestimated definitions focusing on license terms as a general proposition. Partly as a result, I've reassessed how I channel those projects, and my desire to belong among those invested in them, through my practice. Clients assume what I say is legally grounded. My job is to hear them and help them. Not to cite them under someone else's client's PR program, or scare them straight with the hiss of a hot "proprietary" brand.

rectang 8y ago
The Open Source ecosystem rests on top of the OSI definition of "Open Source". Those with an interest in preserving the meaning of "Open Source" are broad, numerous and diverse; those with an interest in subverting it to confuse "open source" with "source available" are few, and destructive.
- dman 8y ago
  Dont think this is as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The emergence of cloud providers + hosted solutions and the ongoing disappearance of on premise computing means its increasingly hard to figure out a business model for infrastructure tech. Multiple database companies with excellent products (Rethinkdb et al) have faced significant challenges commercializing software that is open source. We need credible monetization strategies for building infrastructure level open source software. I do not fully agree with the Commons clause implementation, but I understand the need for it to exist and welcome efforts in this area. DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this post are my own and do not represent my employer in any way.
  - rectang 8y ago
    I would very much like to see those companies succeed. But when a company forces me to choose between their survival and the survival of Open Source as an institution, my choice is made.
    - kemitchell 8y ago
      Hyperbole for hyperbole: When an institution can't respond to urgent needs, or privileges one side of a balance over the other until it tips, there is nothing you can do for it. I've read messages on OSI's mailing list that if you have to ask how your're going to make money making open source, you're the wrong person to make open source, and ought to make proprietary software, instead.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > The emergence of cloud providers + hosted solutions and the ongoing disappearance of on premise computing means its increasingly hard to figure out a business model for infrastructure tech. The fact that open source works to the benefit of the largest providers of software-related services by commoditizing software itself is not new with the rise of the cloud as a new and popular domain of software-related services. And the source available and free non-commercial and selective commercial use, but negotiate a separate license for commercial use that we want to monopolize model is not an innovative solution to that problem, and generally isn't all that successful of a solution, especially as a switch for software which already has open source versions available that third parties can fork and commercially exploit even after the change.
    - dman 8y ago
      Licensing choices dont exist in a vacuum, they are made with a business climate in mind. I think many projects picked liberal licenses in a climate where the assumption was that you could make your money selling integration / consulting on top of the software. I think we are no longer living in that world. In this new cloudy world we need to find a way to fund the development of infrastructure software (databases / debuggers / libraries etc).
- kemitchell 8y ago
  Some experiences of open source rest on the OSD, but not all. If your experience does, that doesn't invalidate your experience. But your experience doesn't invalidate others', either. Browbeat or excommunicate all the heretics, I think you'll find yourself preaching to a much smaller choir. Granted: OSD, or rather the OSI-approved license list, rules in enterprise procurement at a particular and fairly common level of sophistication. At the same time, I've had conversations with sponsoring companies, prolific contributors, investment types, and others, mentioned OSD, received blank stares, explained, and then heard they don't care. Not relevant. Does not resonate. Different experiences. I have never seen any good evidence to back your claim of a quiet OSI majority, except if you count open source consumers as an inevitable majority over open source producers, and ascribe the former to OSI. My own direct experience of open source licensing news and work has been a constant drumbeat of interest in refining and expanding licensing models. HESSLA. Fair Source. Now Commons Clause. Experiments. They're coming faster and faster. Many of the folks advancing those proposals, like the one linked here, are also creating relevant software. From their point of view, claims that their work is "destructive" ring hollow, since they're constructing lots of code for others to use. They're especially irked by criticism in consumer-centric terms, like those of the OSD. After all, the OSD isn't a _license_ compatibility guide, but an _institutional_ compatibility list. It doesn't tell you which code you can get into an open project. By corporate handbook fiat, it tells you which code you can get into your company.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    What's the point of preaching to a larger choir, if they don't speak the same language? You're just straining your voice in vain. HESSLA and Fair Source both clearly state they are not open source, so I don't see how they go against rectang's point; the problem is not the existence of different models, but muddling the language to conflate them with the preceding one. That's essentially an EEE attack, and it's no wonder that existing OSS developers refuse to participate in it.
    - kemitchell 8y ago
      We invoke "open source" in many more ways and places than dry terms like "express patent license" and "copyleft license". The latter have near-zero community, marketing, or ideological meaning. They aren't the names of movements to identify with. The push and pull between what doing open source is and what open source is supposed to mean has always gone two ways. If the status quo serves your needs, it's natural to cast "open source" as a rigorously bounded definitional category in the vein of "copyleft", and to downplay its social aspects. From a frustrated developer's point of view, it's natural to cast "open source" as a community first and foremost, and elide theory. One point of view says, "We have this great definition to reference and rely upon, and you're trying to skim value and prestige off it." The other says, "We have all these people to celebrate and work with, and you're trying to claim their support while ignoring their needs." Two extremes.
DannyBee 8y ago
Meh. We've been through this phase before. Like anything, I do actually think it's reasonable to say "i understand the history of why things are the way they are now, but i want to see if they still should be that way"[1]. It may even be a reasonable time to see if that's the case given how much people have forgotten. It's been 20+ years since the last go around. However, i do think ATM we will arrive at the same outcome we have in the past - after all the kerfuffles, i don't see things like the commons clause sticking. I also personally wish they would try innovative things, instead of old, tired things, but such is life. Otherwise, yeah, i agree that pretty much no business gives a shit in the end about the licensing term difference between open source/free software/what have you. I also agree that your job is to advise people. I do feel comfortable complaining about what they do with that advice, however ;) [1] I don't believe most of the folks involved in this understand the history, but that's secondary.
- rapnie 8y ago
  > I also personally wish they would try innovative things I am all for that. Do you have examples of what you are thinking of here?
- kemitchell 8y ago
  Thanks for your comment. I think we understand each other better. I don't have great hope for Commons Clause, either, at least at the moment. But I've had a few think-throughs, and I've yet to hear from those whose views I really need to feel complete on it. As for old, tired things, I imagine some still await their time, with a bit of adaptation. Changed circumstances and all that. But I will also hold your comment on "innovative things" in my pocket. Should the HN beast come lumbering after any more of my own little licensing experiments, I may need it!

rectang 8y ago

The Open Source ecosystem rests on top of the OSI definition of "Open Source". Those with an interest in preserving the meaning of "Open Source" are broad, numerous and diverse; those with an interest in subverting it to confuse "open source" with "source available" are few, and destructive.

dman 8y ago
Dont think this is as cut and dry as you make it out to be. The emergence of cloud providers + hosted solutions and the ongoing disappearance of on premise computing means its increasingly hard to figure out a business model for infrastructure tech. Multiple database companies with excellent products (Rethinkdb et al) have faced significant challenges commercializing software that is open source. We need credible monetization strategies for building infrastructure level open source software. I do not fully agree with the Commons clause implementation, but I understand the need for it to exist and welcome efforts in this area. DISCLAIMER: Views expressed in this post are my own and do not represent my employer in any way.
- rectang 8y ago
  I would very much like to see those companies succeed. But when a company forces me to choose between their survival and the survival of Open Source as an institution, my choice is made.
  - kemitchell 8y ago
    Hyperbole for hyperbole: When an institution can't respond to urgent needs, or privileges one side of a balance over the other until it tips, there is nothing you can do for it. I've read messages on OSI's mailing list that if you have to ask how your're going to make money making open source, you're the wrong person to make open source, and ought to make proprietary software, instead.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > The emergence of cloud providers + hosted solutions and the ongoing disappearance of on premise computing means its increasingly hard to figure out a business model for infrastructure tech. The fact that open source works to the benefit of the largest providers of software-related services by commoditizing software itself is not new with the rise of the cloud as a new and popular domain of software-related services. And the source available and free non-commercial and selective commercial use, but negotiate a separate license for commercial use that we want to monopolize model is not an innovative solution to that problem, and generally isn't all that successful of a solution, especially as a switch for software which already has open source versions available that third parties can fork and commercially exploit even after the change.
  - dman 8y ago
    Licensing choices dont exist in a vacuum, they are made with a business climate in mind. I think many projects picked liberal licenses in a climate where the assumption was that you could make your money selling integration / consulting on top of the software. I think we are no longer living in that world. In this new cloudy world we need to find a way to fund the development of infrastructure software (databases / debuggers / libraries etc).
kemitchell 8y ago
Some experiences of open source rest on the OSD, but not all. If your experience does, that doesn't invalidate your experience. But your experience doesn't invalidate others', either. Browbeat or excommunicate all the heretics, I think you'll find yourself preaching to a much smaller choir. Granted: OSD, or rather the OSI-approved license list, rules in enterprise procurement at a particular and fairly common level of sophistication. At the same time, I've had conversations with sponsoring companies, prolific contributors, investment types, and others, mentioned OSD, received blank stares, explained, and then heard they don't care. Not relevant. Does not resonate. Different experiences. I have never seen any good evidence to back your claim of a quiet OSI majority, except if you count open source consumers as an inevitable majority over open source producers, and ascribe the former to OSI. My own direct experience of open source licensing news and work has been a constant drumbeat of interest in refining and expanding licensing models. HESSLA. Fair Source. Now Commons Clause. Experiments. They're coming faster and faster. Many of the folks advancing those proposals, like the one linked here, are also creating relevant software. From their point of view, claims that their work is "destructive" ring hollow, since they're constructing lots of code for others to use. They're especially irked by criticism in consumer-centric terms, like those of the OSD. After all, the OSD isn't a _license_ compatibility guide, but an _institutional_ compatibility list. It doesn't tell you which code you can get into an open project. By corporate handbook fiat, it tells you which code you can get into your company.
- icebraining 8y ago
  What's the point of preaching to a larger choir, if they don't speak the same language? You're just straining your voice in vain. HESSLA and Fair Source both clearly state they are not open source, so I don't see how they go against rectang's point; the problem is not the existence of different models, but muddling the language to conflate them with the preceding one. That's essentially an EEE attack, and it's no wonder that existing OSS developers refuse to participate in it.
  - kemitchell 8y ago
    We invoke "open source" in many more ways and places than dry terms like "express patent license" and "copyleft license". The latter have near-zero community, marketing, or ideological meaning. They aren't the names of movements to identify with. The push and pull between what doing open source is and what open source is supposed to mean has always gone two ways. If the status quo serves your needs, it's natural to cast "open source" as a rigorously bounded definitional category in the vein of "copyleft", and to downplay its social aspects. From a frustrated developer's point of view, it's natural to cast "open source" as a community first and foremost, and elide theory. One point of view says, "We have this great definition to reference and rely upon, and you're trying to skim value and prestige off it." The other says, "We have all these people to celebrate and work with, and you're trying to claim their support while ignoring their needs." Two extremes.

DannyBee 8y ago

Meh. We've been through this phase before. Like anything, I do actually think it's reasonable to say "i understand the history of why things are the way they are now, but i want to see if they still should be that way"[1]. It may even be a reasonable time to see if that's the case given how much people have forgotten. It's been 20+ years since the last go around. However, i do think ATM we will arrive at the same outcome we have in the past - after all the kerfuffles, i don't see things like the commons clause sticking. I also personally wish they would try innovative things, instead of old, tired things, but such is life. Otherwise, yeah, i agree that pretty much no business gives a shit in the end about the licensing term difference between open source/free software/what have you. I also agree that your job is to advise people. I do feel comfortable complaining about what they do with that advice, however ;) [1] I don't believe most of the folks involved in this understand the history, but that's secondary.

rapnie 8y ago
> I also personally wish they would try innovative things I am all for that. Do you have examples of what you are thinking of here?
kemitchell 8y ago
Thanks for your comment. I think we understand each other better. I don't have great hope for Commons Clause, either, at least at the moment. But I've had a few think-throughs, and I've yet to hear from those whose views I really need to feel complete on it. As for old, tired things, I imagine some still await their time, with a bit of adaptation. Changed circumstances and all that. But I will also hold your comment on "innovative things" in my pocket. Should the HN beast come lumbering after any more of my own little licensing experiments, I may need it!