5 ms·

"The community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed." The open source issue is fixed, it is called AGPL. However, the issu

by omeid2 8y ago

"The community now understands that the original concept of open source has to be fixed." The open source issue is fixed, it is called AGPL. However, the issue that Redis along many other suffering from is called brutal competition, it is not even just tech or open source tech, Amazon is eating everyone's lunch. I don't have any idea how this problem can be solved. But, I know that restricting building API compatible software is not a solution, not a good one at least. Letting anyone build API compatible software is a natural order of things that enables innovation and helps consumers avoid lock-in, specially with stagnated software, this is a big deal and something that we shouldn't give up, so on that topic, fark Oracle.

djsumdog 8y ago
If Redis had some big product people used, and their Redis server was just a middleware component, it could be a great side business where they sell support, but not the primary business. All the other big players like Google/Facebook will open source those middle pieces to help people who will make apps that will most likely have to interact with their platforms. They'll never release the source to actual end products. Are there any examples where the middle-tier stuff is successful on its own as a business model? I guess you could say Redhat or Canonical, but even then they're developing a lot of commercial stuff around the core open source operating systems/distros .. things like Landscape. Also they got in early, years ago, and might be able to build a better foundation than more recent companies.
- omeid2 8y ago
  Even with closed source software, Amazon will eat your lunch, even if you're Microsoft: AWS WorkMail is Exchange compatible. It is a hard problem.
  - bpicolo 8y ago
    > even if you're Microsoft: AWS WorkMail is Exchange compatible That may be the case, but WorkMail is definitely not eating MSFT's lunch. Microsoft continues to be incredibly successful in enterprise
- spectre256 8y ago
  RedHat is (was?) sortof an example, but their product wasn't the open source software per-se, it was the guarantees their consulting and support offers. RedHat makes, for example, patches for kernel vulnerabilities, but they actually give that away for free. What they sell is a promise that when there's a new vulnerability, you can get a patch from them quickly. They also spread this service across MANY different open source packages. Like you said, a company that just offered services around a smaller package would have to run a lot more lean and would probably be a risky venture.
  - gruez 8y ago
    >RedHat makes, for example, patches for kernel vulnerabilities, but they actually give that away for free. What they sell is a promise that when there's a new vulnerability, you can get a patch from them quickly. What's preventing someone from freeloading? It sounds like regardless of whether you're paying, you can still get the patches.
    - ralph84 8y ago
      Nothing. CentOS is RHEL without the logos and tech support.
    - SXX 8y ago
      > What's preventing someone from freeloading? If you catch any bugs specific to your systems or need special feature Red Hat is always there to help because a lot of open source software developers are as well Red Hat employees. If you use CentOS or whatever other RHEL-based distribution there is no support at all other the one community might provide.
    - bonzini 8y ago
      Nothing, in fact Oracle is freeloading with Oracle Linux. But people prefer getting the thing from people that have a better track record and have direct access to the developers. It's much harder for freeloaders to accept feature requests from customers, for example, because that would result in a fork.
    - 8y ago
anth_anm 8y ago
> But, I know that restricting building API compatible software is not a solution It's certainly a solution. It's just a really really bad one that makes lock in obscene and would probably strengthen amazon.
Dayshine 8y ago
>The open source issue is fixed, it is called AGPL. AGPL has one major drawback though, it prevents free non-commercial use. If I use ghostscript for a research data collection system, I have to open source the whole thing? I wish there was a version of AGPL which exempted non-commercial use, as I doubt anybody means to force charities to pay up...
- gbuk2013 8y ago
  > AGPL has one major drawback though, it prevents free non-commercial use. No, it doesn’t. It just requires that you release the source code of the modifications. https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-license-v3-(agpl-3.0) https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-lice... An open source licence can’t prevent any use, otherwise it would no longer be an open source licence.
  - Dayshine 8y ago
    AGPL doesn't have a linking exception, so it's not modifications only, it's all code that uses the library. E.g. in order to use an AGPL library I have to open source my entire project. We can all claim there is no security through obscurity, but the risk/reward decision is really difficult. AGPL is GPL + over the internet, not LGPL + over the internet.
    - gbuk2013 8y ago
      And in no way does that "prevent free non-commercial use" as you originally claimed. If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it.
      - Dayshine 8y ago
        Sorry, this isn't a semantic conflict on the meaning of "prevent" is it? A library adopting the AGPL license has the effect of making it impossible for closed-source non-commercial projects to use it, even without modification. > If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it. Commercial projects can afford to pay, open source projects don't need to. Charities, research institutions, etc can't afford to pay, and usually can't open source their projects. If we move to an industry where AGPL is standard without any exemption for closed-source non-commercial use, we prevent the usage that nobody would object to.
kemitchell 8y ago
> The open source issue is fixed, it is called AGPL. AGPL is also busted. It has its own loopholes, some self-imposed for nebulous reasons attributed to software freedom, some self-imposed due to FSF's peculiar stances on copyright law more generally. Those limitations are starting to become practical, as big companies with legal talent actually start reading and analyzing the terms, as applied to important projects like MongoDB. Mongo alluded to those weaknesses in its submission of SSPL to OSI. I've written about them in slightly more detail: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up.html#bounty https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up.h...

by omeid2 8y ago

djsumdog 8y ago

If Redis had some big product people used, and their Redis server was just a middleware component, it could be a great side business where they sell support, but not the primary business. All the other big players like Google/Facebook will open source those middle pieces to help people who will make apps that will most likely have to interact with their platforms. They'll never release the source to actual end products. Are there any examples where the middle-tier stuff is successful on its own as a business model? I guess you could say Redhat or Canonical, but even then they're developing a lot of commercial stuff around the core open source operating systems/distros .. things like Landscape. Also they got in early, years ago, and might be able to build a better foundation than more recent companies.

omeid2 8y ago
Even with closed source software, Amazon will eat your lunch, even if you're Microsoft: AWS WorkMail is Exchange compatible. It is a hard problem.
- bpicolo 8y ago
  > even if you're Microsoft: AWS WorkMail is Exchange compatible That may be the case, but WorkMail is definitely not eating MSFT's lunch. Microsoft continues to be incredibly successful in enterprise
spectre256 8y ago
RedHat is (was?) sortof an example, but their product wasn't the open source software per-se, it was the guarantees their consulting and support offers. RedHat makes, for example, patches for kernel vulnerabilities, but they actually give that away for free. What they sell is a promise that when there's a new vulnerability, you can get a patch from them quickly. They also spread this service across MANY different open source packages. Like you said, a company that just offered services around a smaller package would have to run a lot more lean and would probably be a risky venture.
- gruez 8y ago
  >RedHat makes, for example, patches for kernel vulnerabilities, but they actually give that away for free. What they sell is a promise that when there's a new vulnerability, you can get a patch from them quickly. What's preventing someone from freeloading? It sounds like regardless of whether you're paying, you can still get the patches.
  - ralph84 8y ago
    Nothing. CentOS is RHEL without the logos and tech support.
  - SXX 8y ago
    > What's preventing someone from freeloading? If you catch any bugs specific to your systems or need special feature Red Hat is always there to help because a lot of open source software developers are as well Red Hat employees. If you use CentOS or whatever other RHEL-based distribution there is no support at all other the one community might provide.
  - bonzini 8y ago
    Nothing, in fact Oracle is freeloading with Oracle Linux. But people prefer getting the thing from people that have a better track record and have direct access to the developers. It's much harder for freeloaders to accept feature requests from customers, for example, because that would result in a fork.
  - 8y ago

anth_anm 8y ago

> But, I know that restricting building API compatible software is not a solution It's certainly a solution. It's just a really really bad one that makes lock in obscene and would probably strengthen amazon.

Dayshine 8y ago

>The open source issue is fixed, it is called AGPL. AGPL has one major drawback though, it prevents free non-commercial use. If I use ghostscript for a research data collection system, I have to open source the whole thing? I wish there was a version of AGPL which exempted non-commercial use, as I doubt anybody means to force charities to pay up...

gbuk2013 8y ago
> AGPL has one major drawback though, it prevents free non-commercial use. No, it doesn’t. It just requires that you release the source code of the modifications. https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-license-v3-(agpl-3.0) https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-lice... An open source licence can’t prevent any use, otherwise it would no longer be an open source licence.
- Dayshine 8y ago
  AGPL doesn't have a linking exception, so it's not modifications only, it's all code that uses the library. E.g. in order to use an AGPL library I have to open source my entire project. We can all claim there is no security through obscurity, but the risk/reward decision is really difficult. AGPL is GPL + over the internet, not LGPL + over the internet.
  - gbuk2013 8y ago
    And in no way does that "prevent free non-commercial use" as you originally claimed. If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it.
    - Dayshine 8y ago
      Sorry, this isn't a semantic conflict on the meaning of "prevent" is it? A library adopting the AGPL license has the effect of making it impossible for closed-source non-commercial projects to use it, even without modification. > If you do not like the obligation it places on you in exchange for using the work of other people then don't use it. Commercial projects can afford to pay, open source projects don't need to. Charities, research institutions, etc can't afford to pay, and usually can't open source their projects. If we move to an industry where AGPL is standard without any exemption for closed-source non-commercial use, we prevent the usage that nobody would object to.

kemitchell 8y ago

> The open source issue is fixed, it is called AGPL. AGPL is also busted. It has its own loopholes, some self-imposed for nebulous reasons attributed to software freedom, some self-imposed due to FSF's peculiar stances on copyright law more generally. Those limitations are starting to become practical, as big companies with legal talent actually start reading and analyzing the terms, as applied to important projects like MongoDB. Mongo alluded to those weaknesses in its submission of SSPL to OSI. I've written about them in slightly more detail: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up.html#bounty https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up.h...