7 ms·

>> By hosted, we mean charging customers for the hosted version of the open source product. The risk is that a cloud provider decides to compete with your hoste

by d0m 6y ago

>> By hosted, we mean charging customers for the hosted version of the open source product. The risk is that a cloud provider decides to compete with your hosted version. An interesting approach is what cockroachdb did, which basically forbid this very specific use case, and is otherwise standard open-source.

koolba 6y ago
> An interesting approach is what cockroachdb did, which basically forbid this very specific use case, and is otherwise standard open-source. I have no qualms with what they’ve done. It’s their intellectual property and they can do as they see fit. But it’s not open source. There’s plenty of proprietary software that also provides the source code (generally without support). Maybe we need to settle on a new term like “source available”. Or “source provided”. But it’s not open source. To quote Arthur Dent, it’s almost, but not entirely unlike, closed sourced.
- dependenttypes 6y ago
  It offers basically everything that normal open source licenses do except that they have a very specific non-commercial clause regarding offering it as a paid service. I think that calling them “source available” or “source provided” does them a disservice as it implies that you can't modify/distribute/use it.
  - californical 6y ago
    The issue that I have with this license type is: what if there's some functionality that they have built that I would find useful, unrelated to their core business. Like, imagine that they have some tool to make generating UI components easier. If I want to use a bit from their UI component generator in my commercial software, am I violating their license? This is why real open source is so important to distinguish -- I don't want to have to worry about this sort of thing, let alone bring in lawyers to help me decide. Don't get me wrong, or take this as ungrateful. I'm still glad it exists, and am really happy that this works as their business model. I think it is valuable to use as a learning tool (how did they go about solving x problem?), as well as valuable for use in other Open Source software. I hope more companies are able to use licenses like this in the future, to be totally honest. I just want it to be distinguished from true Open Source software.
    - dependenttypes 6y ago
      > If I want to use a bit from their UI component generator in my commercial software, am I violating their license? It depends on the license. Based on what I have read about the cockroachdb, SSPL (mongo) it seems that you can do that (but I am not sure about it, someone more knowledgable might be able to verify it). > This is why real open source is so important to distinguish Consider another case then. You are making a proprietary software that you might or might not be planning to sell and you get the ui generator from an open source software. Are you free to do that? Truth is that just like above the answer is "it depends on the license". GPL will not let you do it while MIT will. LGPL will let you do it if you make the ui generator a library that you dynamically link with and publish your changes to it, while MPL... I have no idea, I think it works on a per-file bases.
- d0m 6y ago
  IMHO this "almost open-source" is even better because otherwise people wouldn't be willing to start companies around their open-source solutions knowing that AWS would just offer a hosted version and screw them over.
  - pookeh 6y ago
    What I always wanted to know is what prevents Amazon to create a service 'inspired by' an open source project. Like...check the source, take ideas, write in 'your own words'?
    - bhl 6y ago
      Nothing. Amazon has already done it in the past. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/technology/amazon-aws-cloud-competition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/technology/amazon-aws-clo... [2] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/setting-the-record-straight-aws-open-source/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/setting-the-record-s...
      - O_H_E 6y ago
        Wow, shit. So much wrong in this world that we can't predict and handle ahead of time.
    - Retric 6y ago
      In theory patents, in practice nothing.
- Retric 6y ago
  If you can host it on your own systems for free and edit the source code it’s more open than an open source software encumbered by patents. Really I think we just need a new terms like unencumbered software (do anything), open license software (give credit and include source code), trapped software (beware patent minefield or infections nature), etc. Because frankly people toss around incompatible definitions of open source all the time.
  - mikekchar 6y ago
    At the risk of being cynical, I don't think it was common to toss around incompatible definitions of open source until very recently. There seems to have been a considerable push by a number of people to dilute the meaning of open source -- in my tin-foil-hat opinion with the intent of destroying the community behind it. Free and open source software has weathered these kinds of attacks many times before and it certainly looks very similar to the kinds of things I've seen before. I think it's a matter of people with vested interests throwing spaghetti against the wall until something sticks. We've often seen cries of "But how will programmers get paid if everything is free?", and "You don't need to modify the code as long as you can see it", and "Free and open source software is incompatible with commercial endeavours". What's new now is, "If you go with a free or open source piece of software, you are playing into the hands of the likes of Google who will gobble you up". This approach has be demonstrably far more successful than others. From the perspective of someone who values free (as in freedom) software, I'm wary of diluting the brand of both free software and open source software. I think it only really serves the interests of people who do not value free and open source software. Given that the OSI actually has a trademark for open source, I hope they enforce it. I'm worried they don't have the resources to do so, though.
    - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
      > Given that the OSI actually has a trademark for open source They don't. They have a trademark for "Open Source Initiative Approved License". There are no legal ramifications to using the term -- I can state everything I do behind closed doors is open source, and I can only judged socially by my peers.
- satvikpendem 6y ago
  Agreed. Open source has a specific definition. People shouldn't repurpose it to mean something it's not, however close it may be. I'm not against the business model of blocking cloud vendors, it's your code if you wrote it, do whatever you want, but don't call it open source, call it something else.
- holri 6y ago
  That is why then term open source is missing the point. It is about users freedom.
- sytse 6y ago
  These new licenses can be called non compete licenses. You can do everything except compete by offering a SaaS to other companies.
  - d0m 6y ago
    Ha, that's a great term for it

by d0m 6y ago

koolba 6y ago

> An interesting approach is what cockroachdb did, which basically forbid this very specific use case, and is otherwise standard open-source. I have no qualms with what they’ve done. It’s their intellectual property and they can do as they see fit. But it’s not open source. There’s plenty of proprietary software that also provides the source code (generally without support). Maybe we need to settle on a new term like “source available”. Or “source provided”. But it’s not open source. To quote Arthur Dent, it’s almost, but not entirely unlike, closed sourced.

dependenttypes 6y ago
It offers basically everything that normal open source licenses do except that they have a very specific non-commercial clause regarding offering it as a paid service. I think that calling them “source available” or “source provided” does them a disservice as it implies that you can't modify/distribute/use it.
- californical 6y ago
  The issue that I have with this license type is: what if there's some functionality that they have built that I would find useful, unrelated to their core business. Like, imagine that they have some tool to make generating UI components easier. If I want to use a bit from their UI component generator in my commercial software, am I violating their license? This is why real open source is so important to distinguish -- I don't want to have to worry about this sort of thing, let alone bring in lawyers to help me decide. Don't get me wrong, or take this as ungrateful. I'm still glad it exists, and am really happy that this works as their business model. I think it is valuable to use as a learning tool (how did they go about solving x problem?), as well as valuable for use in other Open Source software. I hope more companies are able to use licenses like this in the future, to be totally honest. I just want it to be distinguished from true Open Source software.
  - dependenttypes 6y ago
    > If I want to use a bit from their UI component generator in my commercial software, am I violating their license? It depends on the license. Based on what I have read about the cockroachdb, SSPL (mongo) it seems that you can do that (but I am not sure about it, someone more knowledgable might be able to verify it). > This is why real open source is so important to distinguish Consider another case then. You are making a proprietary software that you might or might not be planning to sell and you get the ui generator from an open source software. Are you free to do that? Truth is that just like above the answer is "it depends on the license". GPL will not let you do it while MIT will. LGPL will let you do it if you make the ui generator a library that you dynamically link with and publish your changes to it, while MPL... I have no idea, I think it works on a per-file bases.
d0m 6y ago
IMHO this "almost open-source" is even better because otherwise people wouldn't be willing to start companies around their open-source solutions knowing that AWS would just offer a hosted version and screw them over.
- pookeh 6y ago
  What I always wanted to know is what prevents Amazon to create a service 'inspired by' an open source project. Like...check the source, take ideas, write in 'your own words'?
  - bhl 6y ago
    Nothing. Amazon has already done it in the past. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/technology/amazon-aws-cloud-competition.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/technology/amazon-aws-clo... [2] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/setting-the-record-straight-aws-open-source/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/setting-the-record-s...
    - O_H_E 6y ago
      Wow, shit. So much wrong in this world that we can't predict and handle ahead of time.
  - Retric 6y ago
    In theory patents, in practice nothing.
Retric 6y ago
If you can host it on your own systems for free and edit the source code it’s more open than an open source software encumbered by patents. Really I think we just need a new terms like unencumbered software (do anything), open license software (give credit and include source code), trapped software (beware patent minefield or infections nature), etc. Because frankly people toss around incompatible definitions of open source all the time.
- mikekchar 6y ago
  At the risk of being cynical, I don't think it was common to toss around incompatible definitions of open source until very recently. There seems to have been a considerable push by a number of people to dilute the meaning of open source -- in my tin-foil-hat opinion with the intent of destroying the community behind it. Free and open source software has weathered these kinds of attacks many times before and it certainly looks very similar to the kinds of things I've seen before. I think it's a matter of people with vested interests throwing spaghetti against the wall until something sticks. We've often seen cries of "But how will programmers get paid if everything is free?", and "You don't need to modify the code as long as you can see it", and "Free and open source software is incompatible with commercial endeavours". What's new now is, "If you go with a free or open source piece of software, you are playing into the hands of the likes of Google who will gobble you up". This approach has be demonstrably far more successful than others. From the perspective of someone who values free (as in freedom) software, I'm wary of diluting the brand of both free software and open source software. I think it only really serves the interests of people who do not value free and open source software. Given that the OSI actually has a trademark for open source, I hope they enforce it. I'm worried they don't have the resources to do so, though.
  - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
    > Given that the OSI actually has a trademark for open source They don't. They have a trademark for "Open Source Initiative Approved License". There are no legal ramifications to using the term -- I can state everything I do behind closed doors is open source, and I can only judged socially by my peers.
satvikpendem 6y ago
Agreed. Open source has a specific definition. People shouldn't repurpose it to mean something it's not, however close it may be. I'm not against the business model of blocking cloud vendors, it's your code if you wrote it, do whatever you want, but don't call it open source, call it something else.
holri 6y ago
That is why then term open source is missing the point. It is about users freedom.
sytse 6y ago
These new licenses can be called non compete licenses. You can do everything except compete by offering a SaaS to other companies.
- d0m 6y ago
  Ha, that's a great term for it