4 ms·

Honestly at this point I would rather use Closed Source software than Open Source that isn’t “Free as in Speech”. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. At least clos

by donatj 8y ago

Honestly at this point I would rather use Closed Source software than Open Source that isn’t “Free as in Speech”. It’s a wolf in sheep’s clothing. At least closed source is honest about its intentions. I use Free Software not because the price, but rather so I can be Free. So I can know I am free to use software I develop with it in whatever way I want. I find the push to market open source by limiting it’s use one of the most distasteful things in recent software history.

mdpopescu 8y ago
No. The best is the enemy of the good. I do not want to live in North Korea rather than (say) in the UK, because at least the NK government is honest about its intentions.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
Really, it's simply not Open Source software, that's nothing more than a marketing lie, so we should stop calling it that.
jhanschoo 8y ago
The open source that you call "isn't free as in speech" is actually Free Software. You are able to develop with it in whatever way you want. The requirement is that whatever you develop is also Free Software and is distributed whenever it is used. This is what Stallman has in mind when he talks about free software. Your freedom to develop above free software developed by others cannot come at the cost of others' freedom to develop above your software that has enjoyed the fruits of said freedom.
- julienb_sea 8y ago
  This distinction seems highly misleading. Free is not free if it comes with a litany of restrictions. Licensing concerns pretty much blacklist a swath of open source software for actual use in a business context. Sure, many companies are willing to open source their developer friendly projects. Microsoft with VSCode is a great example. Same with Atlassian's contributions to complex open source UI components. Frankly, these are not done as revenue drivers, but instead as recruiting tools and ecosystem builders. Those benefits are ancillary to the core competency of the parent company. It does not make sense for companies to open source all of their code. It's far too easy in today's world to stand up a highly reliable, performant and scalable SaaS application. Protecting the code behind a SaaS application allows companies to grow and protect themselves at an early stage. IMO this is a significant benefit to the open source community given the open source contributions that established SaaS companies tend to eventually move into. "Free" software is not free at all if people are unable to use it in their systems for fear of legal repercussions.
  - chillacy 8y ago
    Yes it is confusing but that's what Free software means in the original incarnation when Richard Stallman coined it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
geggam 8y ago
So you prefer the BSD licensed software ?
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
marcinzm 8y ago
MongoDB's new license does not in any way prevent you from using MongoDB in whatever way you want. It simply requires you to, in some cases, release the changes you make to it publicly. You know, like the GPL did before companies found that a SaaS model let's you side step the release changes requirement.
- dspillett 8y ago
  >* like the GPL did before companies found that a SaaS model let's you side step the release changes requirement* Unless you use AGPL where the trigger for releasing your modifications is making the change available by any means (direct or otherwise) rather than with the standard GPL where the trigger is distribution of outputs compiled from the modified version.
  - marcinzm 8y ago
    MongoDB did use the AGPL and still had issues with companies trying to argue they didn't need to release their changes. So they switched to their own license which was even more explicit on the matter.
    - GenghisSean 8y ago
      What problems did MongoDB run into? Can you link to any specific instances?
      - dspillett 8y ago
        I think it was specifically Amazon not releasing their changes. Maybe AGPL would cover them and force the release, but if Amazon stuck their heals down it would be an expensive legal fight. My guess is that it was just easier to change the licence used going forward to one that is more explicit and unambiguous about the matter. It was my understanding that AGPL was supposed to cover this specific type of use, so would also be interested in know if there is a real problem or if the licence change was simply to make the point without needing to go lawyer-to-lawyer with someone in possession of Amazon's resources.
GenghisSean 8y ago
I am happy to see someone mention freedom in this thread. I believe the term "open source" distracts from the more prescient issue of user freedom. One of the issues with SSPL is that it intertwines the ideas of an AGPL style copyleft with an allowance for SaaS use cases, specifically in section 13 of SSPL. I would argue this is more pernicious than an openly proprietary license for precisely the wolf in sheep's clothing reasoning you mentioned. People adopting MongoDB and its endorsement of SaaS may believe they're supporting the values of "open source", but they're sacrificing user freedom as Stallman points out in this blog post. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...

by donatj 8y ago

mdpopescu 8y ago

No. The best is the enemy of the good. I do not want to live in North Korea rather than (say) in the UK, because at least the NK government is honest about its intentions.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago

Really, it's simply not Open Source software, that's nothing more than a marketing lie, so we should stop calling it that.

jhanschoo 8y ago

The open source that you call "isn't free as in speech" is actually Free Software. You are able to develop with it in whatever way you want. The requirement is that whatever you develop is also Free Software and is distributed whenever it is used. This is what Stallman has in mind when he talks about free software. Your freedom to develop above free software developed by others cannot come at the cost of others' freedom to develop above your software that has enjoyed the fruits of said freedom.

julienb_sea 8y ago
This distinction seems highly misleading. Free is not free if it comes with a litany of restrictions. Licensing concerns pretty much blacklist a swath of open source software for actual use in a business context. Sure, many companies are willing to open source their developer friendly projects. Microsoft with VSCode is a great example. Same with Atlassian's contributions to complex open source UI components. Frankly, these are not done as revenue drivers, but instead as recruiting tools and ecosystem builders. Those benefits are ancillary to the core competency of the parent company. It does not make sense for companies to open source all of their code. It's far too easy in today's world to stand up a highly reliable, performant and scalable SaaS application. Protecting the code behind a SaaS application allows companies to grow and protect themselves at an early stage. IMO this is a significant benefit to the open source community given the open source contributions that established SaaS companies tend to eventually move into. "Free" software is not free at all if people are unable to use it in their systems for fear of legal repercussions.
- chillacy 8y ago
  Yes it is confusing but that's what Free software means in the original incarnation when Richard Stallman coined it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

geggam 8y ago

So you prefer the BSD licensed software ?

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

marcinzm 8y ago

MongoDB's new license does not in any way prevent you from using MongoDB in whatever way you want. It simply requires you to, in some cases, release the changes you make to it publicly. You know, like the GPL did before companies found that a SaaS model let's you side step the release changes requirement.

dspillett 8y ago
>* like the GPL did before companies found that a SaaS model let's you side step the release changes requirement* Unless you use AGPL where the trigger for releasing your modifications is making the change available by any means (direct or otherwise) rather than with the standard GPL where the trigger is distribution of outputs compiled from the modified version.
- marcinzm 8y ago
  MongoDB did use the AGPL and still had issues with companies trying to argue they didn't need to release their changes. So they switched to their own license which was even more explicit on the matter.
  - GenghisSean 8y ago
    What problems did MongoDB run into? Can you link to any specific instances?
    - dspillett 8y ago
      I think it was specifically Amazon not releasing their changes. Maybe AGPL would cover them and force the release, but if Amazon stuck their heals down it would be an expensive legal fight. My guess is that it was just easier to change the licence used going forward to one that is more explicit and unambiguous about the matter. It was my understanding that AGPL was supposed to cover this specific type of use, so would also be interested in know if there is a real problem or if the licence change was simply to make the point without needing to go lawyer-to-lawyer with someone in possession of Amazon's resources.

GenghisSean 8y ago

I am happy to see someone mention freedom in this thread. I believe the term "open source" distracts from the more prescient issue of user freedom. One of the issues with SSPL is that it intertwines the ideas of an AGPL style copyleft with an allowance for SaaS use cases, specifically in section 13 of SSPL. I would argue this is more pernicious than an openly proprietary license for precisely the wolf in sheep's clothing reasoning you mentioned. People adopting MongoDB and its endorsement of SaaS may believe they're supporting the values of "open source", but they're sacrificing user freedom as Stallman points out in this blog post. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...