4 ms·

I'd argue the definition of what is open source is up for debate, but I had some reasons for this and thought about it for weeks. I hope people know my history

I'd argue the definition of what is open source is up for debate, but I had some reasons for this and thought about it for weeks. I hope people know my history and how I've run projects in the past. But what this does for me is keep me from releasing anything open core. With ansible, ansible was open source but the GUI was not, and we had to hold something back. The traditional alternatives to OSS are to make a support business, which somewhat encourages making buggy or hard to install software, or a consulting business (IMHO, same) and all of those detract from building a product, collectively, with some of your favorite people on the internet. So basically Vespene is going to be like a pseudo-foundation. The structure for this is described here - http://docs.vespene.io/partnership.html http://docs.vespene.io/partnership.html - which keeps consulting and support totally free for small shops, and encouraging larger ones that could potentially make millions form Vespene to give back a very small amount. What normally happens is large companies close six figure contracts supporting open source, and they don't give back a dime, and my goal here is to essentially make a developer's salary off of this project by having those who make more give back a very small amount. This seems pretty fair to me, but I also recognize that some people don't agree with it. That all being said, it's not a "no-commercial" clause in any way, and still free for small consultancies, so I'm not anticipating any major problems. Most of the time, software gets installed in a place of business for that business. For some of my previous thoughts on this, I'd refer folks to https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/why-open-source-needs-new-licenses-d2d9d819a10 https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/why-open-source-needs-new-... and later my current thinking https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/going-with-the-commons-clause-1bdab4c15e5d https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/going-with-the-commons-cla... It's not something I've considered lightly, but this keeps MORE software open, and for a small one-person shop, I think that's more noble than trying to hold some code back and not release it at all. Some people just want 100% free, gimme gimme, etc - and fine - you're entitled to pick one of those things. That's ok. I personally view this a little more pragmatically, under the view of fairness, and also have taken steps (in the CLA, etc), to guarantee that trust is never going to be abused. For instance, the license reverts to pure Apache if Vespene were ever to change hands. On the downside, I can't get screwed over by IBM or Amazon while I'm trying to crank out free software for everyone. That seems fair too, seeing the time investment running an open source community and working on the code takes.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
You have a lot to say here, but I'd like to respond to just this: >I'd argue the definition of what is open source is up for debate It's not up for debate. It hasn't been up for debate for years. There are two generally accepted definitions of FOSS (each addressing the F and OS respectively): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd No one disagrees with these who isn't trying to sow discontent in the open source community. Disagreeing with the OSD or FSD is akin to denying climate change.
- mpdehaan2 8y ago
  See https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/going-with-the-commons-clause-1bdab4c15e5d https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/going-with-the-commons-cla... No discontent. Quite the opposite - providing some options for less things being open core while trying to earn a small amount on my work. If people want to call that not meeting some definition, I'm ok with that, but ascribing malice to it seems a little harsh.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    Publishing software with the Anti-Commons Clause is not malice. Claiming it's open source is.
- Nacraile 8y ago
  > No one disagrees with these who isn't trying to sow discontent in the open source community. No. Everybody who disagrees with these has been driven from your ideological bubble. "Open source" has become a general term that is part of the natural language; nobody has the right to demand everybody use their preferred definition. Many people who use the term will never have visited gnu.org or opensource.org. Many others will have, but will have concluded that the strictness of those definitions is silly. It seems quite reasonable to disagree with a definition of "open source" that makes it practically impossible to make a living off of your work. If you want to have a debate on the merits, fine, but running around telling people they're using English wrong because they disagree with you is just foolish.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

You have a lot to say here, but I'd like to respond to just this: >I'd argue the definition of what is open source is up for debate It's not up for debate. It hasn't been up for debate for years. There are two generally accepted definitions of FOSS (each addressing the F and OS respectively): https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd No one disagrees with these who isn't trying to sow discontent in the open source community. Disagreeing with the OSD or FSD is akin to denying climate change.

mpdehaan2 8y ago
See https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/going-with-the-commons-clause-1bdab4c15e5d https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/going-with-the-commons-cla... No discontent. Quite the opposite - providing some options for less things being open core while trying to earn a small amount on my work. If people want to call that not meeting some definition, I'm ok with that, but ascribing malice to it seems a little harsh.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  Publishing software with the Anti-Commons Clause is not malice. Claiming it's open source is.
Nacraile 8y ago
> No one disagrees with these who isn't trying to sow discontent in the open source community. No. Everybody who disagrees with these has been driven from your ideological bubble. "Open source" has become a general term that is part of the natural language; nobody has the right to demand everybody use their preferred definition. Many people who use the term will never have visited gnu.org or opensource.org. Many others will have, but will have concluded that the strictness of those definitions is silly. It seems quite reasonable to disagree with a definition of "open source" that makes it practically impossible to make a living off of your work. If you want to have a debate on the merits, fine, but running around telling people they're using English wrong because they disagree with you is just foolish.