5 ms·

If I get something from this post and the "Are we still open source?" slides linked in the sibling comment [0], is that Open Source is a dangerous route for sof

by j1elo 6y ago

If I get something from this post and the "Are we still open source?" slides linked in the sibling comment [0], is that Open Source is a dangerous route for software that wants or expects to eventually be commercialized. I've read countless threads on HN and that seems to always be the final lesson. There are lower risk but less "idealistic" licenses such as Apache, and higher risk but also ideal licenses such as GPL. Especially relevant to GPL, it ends up being counterproductive, as the license is a hardcore protection of the users' rights, at the expense of the project owner's rights. See the debate caused by Octotree [1], [2]. It's a pity because the way I see it, GPL is the ideal way to go. But if you need to pay the bills with software you write, it is also one of the worst open source choices out there. (A)GPL is then relegated to either 100% vocational non-commercial code that one writes as a side project, or to big entities that for some reason write GPL code that is not part of their main business. [0]: http://slides.com/adamretter/are-we-still-open-source http://slides.com/adamretter/are-we-still-open-source [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24953821 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24953821 [2]: https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1 https://github.com/christianbundy/octotree/issues/1

LukeEF 6y ago
the intro to the Octotree Github thread basically sums up open source perfectly!
- j1elo 6y ago
  Note the position of the hardest GPL defenders in this Github thread was that: a) You need to have absolute 100% of the code ownership/copyright in order to change the project license. This is not true and there have been precedents where a valid and successful relicense was done with much less (if I remember correctly I learnt this from a comment somewhere hidden in that same Github issue) b) The other project contributors would not necessarily agree with the relicense. Which was not the case: the most prominent contributors showed up and explicitly gave the author ownership (or free license) over their small parts of the code.
  - LukeEF 6y ago
    In our experience, all of the contributors were happy to give permission to re-license the code. They generally believed in the project (that's why they contributed) and wanted TerminusDB to be as successful as possible - if the core team felt that was going to happen by moving to Apache, they weren't going to stand in the way. I suppose you could have somebody quite ideologically attached to the GNU/GPL who could then hold up a change. If the code was core and you couldn't easily re-implement, could make the price high.
    - tytso 6y ago
      We had the same experience with the Linux kernel. The original license was even more hard-line that the GPL --- it ruled out any way of making money, even selling CD-ROMs with Linux on it. Linus had to consult with all of the contributors to relax the restrictions to GPLv2, and we all agreed that it was in the best interests of the community. So there was no problems in terms of getting consent from all of the developers to make that license change to something more permissive than the original license. At the time, the failure modes of the more permissive licensing model (for example, of NetApp's innovations for things like WAFL were never contributed back to BSD) were more foremost in our mind, and so for us the GPLv2 was the right compromise between the rights of the community and the companies using, and improving, the code. Of course, the decision that we made in 1992 was in a world very different from 2020, and so hopefully the choice of the Apache license will be the best one for TerminusDB. I have only the best wishes for you and your community!
echelon 6y ago
GPL is only becoming irrelevant because nobody has the guts to use it. Congratulations to all the teams getting co-opted by Amazon and becoming just another Docker Enterprise. Everyone should go GPL. The time to do it was yesterday. The next best time is now. Make money with licenses so you can actually have a business. Unless you just like funding billion dollar companies for free. (They don't even have to contribute code back!) Open source without fangs is free, stolen labor that gets turned against us.
- mumblemumble 6y ago
  This kind of comment does little to advance the discussion. All you're doing is steamrollering over legitimate opinions with an ad hominem attack. For example, while I don't mind the GPL, I prefer to use more permissive licenses for my own code, because that's what's more in line with my personal ethics. I'm just not a "strings attached" kind of person. There is a courage criticism to make of how I do things, but it works in the opposite of the direction you're trying to take things: I sometimes wish I had the guts to follow SQLite's lead on software licensing.
  - echelon 6y ago
    > All you're doing is steamrollering over legitimate opinions with an ad hominem attack. Where? > This kind of comment does little to advance the discussion. What are you talking about? Wider GPL adoption is central to the discussion! Companies are taking permissively licensed work, making billions, not contributing back, and building massive platforms we'll all be forced to build upon. AWS and the like are a step forward in terms of not needing to image and upgrade machines, but it's ten steps back in terms of computing freedom. The future of computing is closed and they're using open source to corral us in.
    - tytso 6y ago
      > Wider GPL adoption is central to the discussion! Sure. And so the question is, did the GPLv3 improve or degrade adoption of copyleft licensing? To quote from Star Wars, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Like it or not, companies fund the vast majority of open source software development, not hobbists, and when the FSF tried to "tighten its grip" by making a license which moved the balance of benefits more towards free software users, and away from the companies which funded the work, things didn't go well for them. And so what the FSF has found is that the the goals of the free software manifesto has been, more and more, slipping through its fingers. Unless you can make non-free software illegal across all countries, at the end of the day, you need to find a balance where all stakeholders are comfortable with the result so that users, developers, and company freely and happily choose to use free software. This is a negotiation, and if there is more value that can be gained by signing onto the free software ecosystem, then perhaps the balance can be shifted a bit more towards the free software goals. But until you can, given that most open source developers do like food with their meals, a successful open source strategist has to be grounded in the economic and business realities. Just raising your right hand in a fist and shouting, "power to the people" and "freedom" is generally not going to get you very far.
533474 6y ago
Corporate fangs win at the end. It is social pressure for monopoly autocracy and corporate practices. You should have had the freedom to choose whatever license you had in mind without being harassed by company employees or people who misunderstand how to use a GPL licensed product. Dual licensing would be better than giving up the reasons why you chose GPLv3. Corporations can use GPLv3 in their codebases, they r just not bothered following the lawyer approvals so that code is shared back. If you cared about that, perhaps a better option is dual licensing. I hope that the project does not become...yet another free labour camp by developers for big tech money bags.

by j1elo 6y ago

LukeEF 6y ago

the intro to the Octotree Github thread basically sums up open source perfectly!

j1elo 6y ago
Note the position of the hardest GPL defenders in this Github thread was that: a) You need to have absolute 100% of the code ownership/copyright in order to change the project license. This is not true and there have been precedents where a valid and successful relicense was done with much less (if I remember correctly I learnt this from a comment somewhere hidden in that same Github issue) b) The other project contributors would not necessarily agree with the relicense. Which was not the case: the most prominent contributors showed up and explicitly gave the author ownership (or free license) over their small parts of the code.
- LukeEF 6y ago
  In our experience, all of the contributors were happy to give permission to re-license the code. They generally believed in the project (that's why they contributed) and wanted TerminusDB to be as successful as possible - if the core team felt that was going to happen by moving to Apache, they weren't going to stand in the way. I suppose you could have somebody quite ideologically attached to the GNU/GPL who could then hold up a change. If the code was core and you couldn't easily re-implement, could make the price high.
  - tytso 6y ago
    We had the same experience with the Linux kernel. The original license was even more hard-line that the GPL --- it ruled out any way of making money, even selling CD-ROMs with Linux on it. Linus had to consult with all of the contributors to relax the restrictions to GPLv2, and we all agreed that it was in the best interests of the community. So there was no problems in terms of getting consent from all of the developers to make that license change to something more permissive than the original license. At the time, the failure modes of the more permissive licensing model (for example, of NetApp's innovations for things like WAFL were never contributed back to BSD) were more foremost in our mind, and so for us the GPLv2 was the right compromise between the rights of the community and the companies using, and improving, the code. Of course, the decision that we made in 1992 was in a world very different from 2020, and so hopefully the choice of the Apache license will be the best one for TerminusDB. I have only the best wishes for you and your community!

echelon 6y ago

GPL is only becoming irrelevant because nobody has the guts to use it. Congratulations to all the teams getting co-opted by Amazon and becoming just another Docker Enterprise. Everyone should go GPL. The time to do it was yesterday. The next best time is now. Make money with licenses so you can actually have a business. Unless you just like funding billion dollar companies for free. (They don't even have to contribute code back!) Open source without fangs is free, stolen labor that gets turned against us.

mumblemumble 6y ago
This kind of comment does little to advance the discussion. All you're doing is steamrollering over legitimate opinions with an ad hominem attack. For example, while I don't mind the GPL, I prefer to use more permissive licenses for my own code, because that's what's more in line with my personal ethics. I'm just not a "strings attached" kind of person. There is a courage criticism to make of how I do things, but it works in the opposite of the direction you're trying to take things: I sometimes wish I had the guts to follow SQLite's lead on software licensing.
- echelon 6y ago
  > All you're doing is steamrollering over legitimate opinions with an ad hominem attack. Where? > This kind of comment does little to advance the discussion. What are you talking about? Wider GPL adoption is central to the discussion! Companies are taking permissively licensed work, making billions, not contributing back, and building massive platforms we'll all be forced to build upon. AWS and the like are a step forward in terms of not needing to image and upgrade machines, but it's ten steps back in terms of computing freedom. The future of computing is closed and they're using open source to corral us in.
  - tytso 6y ago
    > Wider GPL adoption is central to the discussion! Sure. And so the question is, did the GPLv3 improve or degrade adoption of copyleft licensing? To quote from Star Wars, "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." Like it or not, companies fund the vast majority of open source software development, not hobbists, and when the FSF tried to "tighten its grip" by making a license which moved the balance of benefits more towards free software users, and away from the companies which funded the work, things didn't go well for them. And so what the FSF has found is that the the goals of the free software manifesto has been, more and more, slipping through its fingers. Unless you can make non-free software illegal across all countries, at the end of the day, you need to find a balance where all stakeholders are comfortable with the result so that users, developers, and company freely and happily choose to use free software. This is a negotiation, and if there is more value that can be gained by signing onto the free software ecosystem, then perhaps the balance can be shifted a bit more towards the free software goals. But until you can, given that most open source developers do like food with their meals, a successful open source strategist has to be grounded in the economic and business realities. Just raising your right hand in a fist and shouting, "power to the people" and "freedom" is generally not going to get you very far.

533474 6y ago

Corporate fangs win at the end. It is social pressure for monopoly autocracy and corporate practices. You should have had the freedom to choose whatever license you had in mind without being harassed by company employees or people who misunderstand how to use a GPL licensed product. Dual licensing would be better than giving up the reasons why you chose GPLv3. Corporations can use GPLv3 in their codebases, they r just not bothered following the lawyer approvals so that code is shared back. If you cared about that, perhaps a better option is dual licensing. I hope that the project does not become...yet another free labour camp by developers for big tech money bags.