5 ms·

I'm new to this particular controversy, but as a startup founder considering to open up their stack, I think what Confluent is doing here is very reasonable. F

I'm new to this particular controversy, but as a startup founder considering to open up their stack, I think what Confluent is doing here is very reasonable. From their own FAQ: > Is Confluent Community License open source? Strictly speaking it is “source-available.” .. So if Bryan's analysis holds up and indeed, you don't own your copy and instead you merely were given the right to use and modify it, as long as you abide by rules X, Y and Z, then.. well, isn't that okay too? Isn't that better than nothing? Is there some sort of hidden rule somewhere that if you sell (or give away) the right to read and modify your proprietary software, that then you're suddenly evil? I think I must be missing something, but what's the core argument here? This sort of thing makes the rounds on HN frequently, but I get the feeling that all but the most avid FSF-supporters are okay with 100% closed, proprietary, SaaS, etc software existing, and also okay with 100% OSI-approved open source. But somehow people get super angry about anything that falls in the middle. Why is that? Why is proprietary software nothing to worry about, but proprietary software with a "here's the source, have fun" notice tacked onto it totally evil? To be honest, I don't always buy the argument about muddying the definition of "open source". Yes, there have been companies that called their thing open source even though it wasn't, by the OSI definition, and that's a shitty move. But my impression is that Confluent is not one of those companies.

bo1024 8y ago
Well it just doesn't make sense to me. If I were to clone the repo for example or receive the code in some other way, then I've never entered into any sort of contract or legal relationship with this company yet they're suddenly asserting all sorts of control and limits on my rights (far beyond cppyright law).
- kemitchell 8y ago
  > (far beyond copyright law) I don't know your jurisdiction, but in the US, this isn't just a matter of copyright law, and copyright law itself has developed to support rules about use in license terms. Many old open source licenses came from legal activists who opposed the application of contract law to public license terms and conditions or restrictions on use under license, for whatever reason. Overall, US law hasn't gone their way.
jsnell 8y ago
> Yes, there have been companies that called their thing open source even though it wasn't, by the OSI definition, and that's a shitty move. But my impression is that Confluent is not one of those companies. When you take an open source project and re-license it under a proprietary license (without changing the name, the repository, etc), a lot of scrubbing will be required to erase all representations of the project as being open source. For example here it took one page view and about 5 seconds to find an example: the ksql repo [0] still has the open-source tag. [0] https://github.com/confluentinc/ksql https://github.com/confluentinc/ksql
- skrebbel 8y ago
  Isn't it just a matter of time before that gets fixed? I imagine they can scrub the majority of those cases in a few weeks if not faster. I mean I see your point, and I appreciate you taking the time to answer. But it's a fixable problem, right?
  - jsnell 8y ago
    Yes, clearly once it was pointed out it was going to just be a matter of time :) But I just think that even with the best of intentions, it'll take a long long time for every such reference to be found, reported and fixed.
    - skrebbel 8y ago
      Hah actually you made me curious now :-) Knowing the FOSS community a bit, I'd personally imagine every GitHub repo flooding with subtly pedantic but well-meaning issues and pull requests titled "fix licensing". Thanks again for your thoughts by the way.
logifail 8y ago
>> Strictly speaking it is “source-available.” The source code for Windows is also "available" ... "to qualified customers, enterprises, governments, and partners..." [0] [0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/
- kemitchell 8y ago
  That's true. There are many shades of "available". IIRC, Microsoft shares limited slivers of Windows source under specific programs, which include nondisclosure and other terms. Those programs do not permit publication. When the folks I talk to say "source-available", they tend to mean "source publicly available". I don't think usage is clear on whether that publicly available source must come with a public license for re-publication and distribution. When code is "source-available" primarily for audit purposes, it often doesn't. Otherwise, it often does.
kemitchell 8y ago
> Is there some sort of hidden rule somewhere that if you sell (or give away) the right to read and modify your proprietary software, that then you're suddenly evil? In practice, there is, at least among some vocal activists. It's not a short read, but I've brought up this very point, and examined it, here: https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/16/two-party.html https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/16/two-party.html
ensignavenger 8y ago
There are two things that lead to the controversy: 1) They are re-licensing a formerly open source project, turning it into a closed source project. I am not familiar with their community, but there is a good chance that they have attracted users and possibly contributors based on the fact that they the software was open source. While these folks can continue to use the old version, such a betrayal of the community cannot be expected to be taken lightly. 2) The product relies on and is built on top of open source software (Kafka). As it is a part of the Kafka ecosystem, it can bee seen as a betrayal to the entire ecosystem to change course like this. So it is certainly within their legal rights to close their source like this, and it is within the communities rights, both legal and moral, to decry the change.

bo1024 8y ago

Well it just doesn't make sense to me. If I were to clone the repo for example or receive the code in some other way, then I've never entered into any sort of contract or legal relationship with this company yet they're suddenly asserting all sorts of control and limits on my rights (far beyond cppyright law).

kemitchell 8y ago
> (far beyond copyright law) I don't know your jurisdiction, but in the US, this isn't just a matter of copyright law, and copyright law itself has developed to support rules about use in license terms. Many old open source licenses came from legal activists who opposed the application of contract law to public license terms and conditions or restrictions on use under license, for whatever reason. Overall, US law hasn't gone their way.

jsnell 8y ago

> Yes, there have been companies that called their thing open source even though it wasn't, by the OSI definition, and that's a shitty move. But my impression is that Confluent is not one of those companies. When you take an open source project and re-license it under a proprietary license (without changing the name, the repository, etc), a lot of scrubbing will be required to erase all representations of the project as being open source. For example here it took one page view and about 5 seconds to find an example: the ksql repo [0] still has the open-source tag. [0] https://github.com/confluentinc/ksql https://github.com/confluentinc/ksql

skrebbel 8y ago
Isn't it just a matter of time before that gets fixed? I imagine they can scrub the majority of those cases in a few weeks if not faster. I mean I see your point, and I appreciate you taking the time to answer. But it's a fixable problem, right?
- jsnell 8y ago
  Yes, clearly once it was pointed out it was going to just be a matter of time :) But I just think that even with the best of intentions, it'll take a long long time for every such reference to be found, reported and fixed.
  - skrebbel 8y ago
    Hah actually you made me curious now :-) Knowing the FOSS community a bit, I'd personally imagine every GitHub repo flooding with subtly pedantic but well-meaning issues and pull requests titled "fix licensing". Thanks again for your thoughts by the way.

logifail 8y ago

>> Strictly speaking it is “source-available.” The source code for Windows is also "available" ... "to qualified customers, enterprises, governments, and partners..." [0] [0] https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/ https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/sharedsource/

kemitchell 8y ago
That's true. There are many shades of "available". IIRC, Microsoft shares limited slivers of Windows source under specific programs, which include nondisclosure and other terms. Those programs do not permit publication. When the folks I talk to say "source-available", they tend to mean "source publicly available". I don't think usage is clear on whether that publicly available source must come with a public license for re-publication and distribution. When code is "source-available" primarily for audit purposes, it often doesn't. Otherwise, it often does.

kemitchell 8y ago

> Is there some sort of hidden rule somewhere that if you sell (or give away) the right to read and modify your proprietary software, that then you're suddenly evil? In practice, there is, at least among some vocal activists. It's not a short read, but I've brought up this very point, and examined it, here: https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/16/two-party.html https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/16/two-party.html

ensignavenger 8y ago

There are two things that lead to the controversy: 1) They are re-licensing a formerly open source project, turning it into a closed source project. I am not familiar with their community, but there is a good chance that they have attracted users and possibly contributors based on the fact that they the software was open source. While these folks can continue to use the old version, such a betrayal of the community cannot be expected to be taken lightly. 2) The product relies on and is built on top of open source software (Kafka). As it is a part of the Kafka ecosystem, it can bee seen as a betrayal to the entire ecosystem to change course like this. So it is certainly within their legal rights to close their source like this, and it is within the communities rights, both legal and moral, to decry the change.