7 ms·

It is buried in the footnotes of the post, but the ultimate reason behind going closed source is that Google built their enterprise GDrive syncing client for ma

by mike_d 7y ago

It is buried in the footnotes of the post, but the ultimate reason behind going closed source is that Google built their enterprise GDrive syncing client for mac off a fork of osxfuse. The original author of osxfuse feels entitled to some compensation for that and is doing his damnedest to make it happen.

khc 7y ago
the footnote doesn't say that's the reason osxfuse went close source
- mike_d 7y ago
  You can easily infer it if you read the whole article.
  - khc 7y ago
    I did read it but didn't come to the same conclusion
- tra3 7y ago
  He doesn’t call google out by name but what grandparent says explains this: > Starting with this release, redistributions bundled with commercial software ... The question is, is google going to call his bluff and pay up or reassign some internal resources? I’m assuming they’d want their gdrive fork to work on Catalina.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
oefrha 7y ago
Seems like an entire valid use case of BSD-licensed code. If you don't like it you shouldn't have chosen the BSD license in the first place. Edit: Interestingly, from https://github.com/osxfuse/osxfuse/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/osxfuse/osxfuse/blob/master/LICENSE.txt: > FUSE for macOS is a fork of MacFUSE. MacFUSE has been developed by Google Inc..
- kalleboo 7y ago
  > If you don't like it you shouldn't have chosen the BSD license in the first place I mean he changed the license away from BSD now, so, that works too.
  - oefrha 7y ago
    BSD -> closed source is kind of a nuclear option when other less drastic options exist, but sure.
    - z3t4 7y ago
      as I interpret most permissive license's, they say something like "must retain the above copyright notice, and this list of conditions.", which makes it not possible to change the license. But you can always go "closed source", and there's nothing stopping you from charging money (which is why Business likes these permissive license's)
kibwen 7y ago
Given that the main selling point of permissive licenses is that they make it easy for businesses to incorporate code into a project that can be closed-source for the sake of competitive advantage, this would seem to be an incident that might have been prevented with a license more in line with the author's motivations.
yegle 7y ago
FWIW, MacFUSE was open sourced by Google: http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2007/01/taming-mac-os-x-file-systems.html http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2007/01/taming-mac-os-x-file-s...
- chenzhekl 7y ago
  It's no longer being maintained according to the README. https://code.google.com/archive/p/macfuse/ https://code.google.com/archive/p/macfuse/
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    The original author left the company long ago, so I guess they never felt the need to continue updating it.
IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago
The footnote says Google are using their own fork. Now we don't know when they forked and how much they diverged, but it's quite possible that were going to maintain their own fork, anyway. It's also noteworthy isn't the "original author of osxfuse". In fact, Google is. So while I can empathise with the general complaint about commercial use, one doesn't get to make that complaint against the one company that originally started the project and released it under a permissive license.
- floatingatoll 7y ago
  One does get to make that complaint. Disagreeing with someone is no excuse for saying their freedom to exercise the rights of an open source license should be restricted, nor for declaring they have no right to speak their mind openly. Open source grants them this freedom, unpalatable as it may be to you. There is no legal reason preventing their complaint from being made. It may not be well-received by those who demand unlimited reuse without compensation. Regardless, that does not restrict one’s right to make that complaint and take that action.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    This isn't a question of rights. Most people understand in English that "can't complain" means "you can complain if you like but won't be taken seriously or regarded as a valid complaint".
    - floatingatoll 7y ago
      Non-disparagement agreements are a common thing in business. They restrict your right to "complain". I regret the conflict between my understanding of English and that of others, but I stand by my statement.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- ithkuil 7y ago
  Do you know whether Google installs their own signed kext kernel module, or do they rely on this project (and the fork is only for user space bits)?
eps 7y ago
I'm not sure if the dev feels entitled for _compensation_ per se, but G and other companies don't contribute back to the project in any form. Not $ and not in code. Now that is not a very good thing... though technically that's exactly what you get with permissive O/S licenses. It looks like the dev realized that and changed the license. It also doesn't look like he trusts this companies much, because otherwise he could've just slapped the Commons Clause on his existing license and be done with it. So he closed the source instead. https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/
- saagarjha 7y ago
  > G and other companies don't contribute back to the project in any form Amit Singh literally created the project while at Google.
  - eps 7y ago
    Fantastic, but is this meant to somehow give Google a solid excuse for not contributing back to a 3rd party fork they ended up using?
    - richardwhiuk 7y ago
      It's not clear to me that they are using the third party fork
- tus88 7y ago
  > Now that is not a very good thing I am still waiting for someone to explain why open-source software is harmed by people using it, if they don't contribute back.
  - cwyers 7y ago
    So, on one hand, it's not a stone soup situation in the sense that it's not like there's any less soup if Google comes and takes all the soup they can eat. On the other hand, open source software only survives when _someone_ contributes needed maintenance, bug fixes, security patches and features. If you don't find a way to incentivize people to contribute, the project can fail. Incentivizing people who are already using your code and have large sacks of cash seems like the easiest place to start.
atq2119 7y ago
That's why I prefer the GPL and variants for personal projects that I don't intend to profit off monetarily. It's a conscious choice that I do want compensation, and I don't want to work for free"--but said compensation should be in code and not necessarily in money. It's why contributing to a BSD-licensed project as a hobby can feel a bit icky, and doing the same on a GPL-licensed project doesn't.
- deng 7y ago
  > That's why I prefer the GPL This is a pretty common misunderstanding. Google is using oxfuse internally and does not distribute it, so the GPL would not change anything here.
  - joking 7y ago
    are you sure? it's not using oxfuse on the google drive clients that the users download and install on their own machines?
    - jagged-chisel 7y ago
      Distributing it inside the client does indeed qualify as 'distribution' under the GPL and would require the client to then be licensed under the GPL.
      - tobias3 7y ago
        As far as I understand this would be a "mere aggregation" since the application and the kernel module communicate at arms length through the kernel syscall interface https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation . So they'd have to make the source of the kernel extension available (as the GPL requires) but it would not be viral to the application using the kernel extension. As the FAQ entry says this is a legal question "which ultimately judges will decide" and as far as I know that hasn't happend yet. Which is probably one reason many don't want to do it and err on the safe side and choose another project with non-viral license.

by mike_d 7y ago

khc 7y ago

the footnote doesn't say that's the reason osxfuse went close source

mike_d 7y ago
You can easily infer it if you read the whole article.
- khc 7y ago
  I did read it but didn't come to the same conclusion
tra3 7y ago
He doesn’t call google out by name but what grandparent says explains this: > Starting with this release, redistributions bundled with commercial software ... The question is, is google going to call his bluff and pay up or reassign some internal resources? I’m assuming they’d want their gdrive fork to work on Catalina.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

oefrha 7y ago

Seems like an entire valid use case of BSD-licensed code. If you don't like it you shouldn't have chosen the BSD license in the first place. Edit: Interestingly, from https://github.com/osxfuse/osxfuse/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/osxfuse/osxfuse/blob/master/LICENSE.txt: > FUSE for macOS is a fork of MacFUSE. MacFUSE has been developed by Google Inc..

kalleboo 7y ago
> If you don't like it you shouldn't have chosen the BSD license in the first place I mean he changed the license away from BSD now, so, that works too.
- oefrha 7y ago
  BSD -> closed source is kind of a nuclear option when other less drastic options exist, but sure.
  - z3t4 7y ago
    as I interpret most permissive license's, they say something like "must retain the above copyright notice, and this list of conditions.", which makes it not possible to change the license. But you can always go "closed source", and there's nothing stopping you from charging money (which is why Business likes these permissive license's)

kibwen 7y ago

Given that the main selling point of permissive licenses is that they make it easy for businesses to incorporate code into a project that can be closed-source for the sake of competitive advantage, this would seem to be an incident that might have been prevented with a license more in line with the author's motivations.

yegle 7y ago

FWIW, MacFUSE was open sourced by Google: http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2007/01/taming-mac-os-x-file-systems.html http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2007/01/taming-mac-os-x-file-s...

chenzhekl 7y ago
It's no longer being maintained according to the README. https://code.google.com/archive/p/macfuse/ https://code.google.com/archive/p/macfuse/
- saagarjha 7y ago
  The original author left the company long ago, so I guess they never felt the need to continue updating it.

IfOnlyYouKnew 7y ago

The footnote says Google are using their own fork. Now we don't know when they forked and how much they diverged, but it's quite possible that were going to maintain their own fork, anyway. It's also noteworthy isn't the "original author of osxfuse". In fact, Google is. So while I can empathise with the general complaint about commercial use, one doesn't get to make that complaint against the one company that originally started the project and released it under a permissive license.

floatingatoll 7y ago
One does get to make that complaint. Disagreeing with someone is no excuse for saying their freedom to exercise the rights of an open source license should be restricted, nor for declaring they have no right to speak their mind openly. Open source grants them this freedom, unpalatable as it may be to you. There is no legal reason preventing their complaint from being made. It may not be well-received by those who demand unlimited reuse without compensation. Regardless, that does not restrict one’s right to make that complaint and take that action.
- pjc50 7y ago
  This isn't a question of rights. Most people understand in English that "can't complain" means "you can complain if you like but won't be taken seriously or regarded as a valid complaint".
  - floatingatoll 7y ago
    Non-disparagement agreements are a common thing in business. They restrict your right to "complain". I regret the conflict between my understanding of English and that of others, but I stand by my statement.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
ithkuil 7y ago
Do you know whether Google installs their own signed kext kernel module, or do they rely on this project (and the fork is only for user space bits)?

eps 7y ago

I'm not sure if the dev feels entitled for _compensation_ per se, but G and other companies don't contribute back to the project in any form. Not $ and not in code. Now that is not a very good thing... though technically that's exactly what you get with permissive O/S licenses. It looks like the dev realized that and changed the license. It also doesn't look like he trusts this companies much, because otherwise he could've just slapped the Commons Clause on his existing license and be done with it. So he closed the source instead. https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/

saagarjha 7y ago
> G and other companies don't contribute back to the project in any form Amit Singh literally created the project while at Google.
- eps 7y ago
  Fantastic, but is this meant to somehow give Google a solid excuse for not contributing back to a 3rd party fork they ended up using?
  - richardwhiuk 7y ago
    It's not clear to me that they are using the third party fork
tus88 7y ago
> Now that is not a very good thing I am still waiting for someone to explain why open-source software is harmed by people using it, if they don't contribute back.
- cwyers 7y ago
  So, on one hand, it's not a stone soup situation in the sense that it's not like there's any less soup if Google comes and takes all the soup they can eat. On the other hand, open source software only survives when _someone_ contributes needed maintenance, bug fixes, security patches and features. If you don't find a way to incentivize people to contribute, the project can fail. Incentivizing people who are already using your code and have large sacks of cash seems like the easiest place to start.

atq2119 7y ago

That's why I prefer the GPL and variants for personal projects that I don't intend to profit off monetarily. It's a conscious choice that I do want compensation, and I don't want to work for free"--but said compensation should be in code and not necessarily in money. It's why contributing to a BSD-licensed project as a hobby can feel a bit icky, and doing the same on a GPL-licensed project doesn't.

deng 7y ago
> That's why I prefer the GPL This is a pretty common misunderstanding. Google is using oxfuse internally and does not distribute it, so the GPL would not change anything here.
- joking 7y ago
  are you sure? it's not using oxfuse on the google drive clients that the users download and install on their own machines?
  - jagged-chisel 7y ago
    Distributing it inside the client does indeed qualify as 'distribution' under the GPL and would require the client to then be licensed under the GPL.
    - tobias3 7y ago
      As far as I understand this would be a "mere aggregation" since the application and the kernel module communicate at arms length through the kernel syscall interface https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#MereAggregation . So they'd have to make the source of the kernel extension available (as the GPL requires) but it would not be viral to the application using the kernel extension. As the FAQ entry says this is a legal question "which ultimately judges will decide" and as far as I know that hasn't happend yet. Which is probably one reason many don't want to do it and err on the safe side and choose another project with non-viral license.