4 ms·

The open source world needs to come together and create a license that is well crafted. Otherwise we will keep seeing these less suitable licenses. So far the

by api 6y ago

The open source world needs to come together and create a license that is well crafted. Otherwise we will keep seeing these less suitable licenses. So far the FOSS world seems to be pretending this problem doesn’t exist. Pretending a problem doesn’t exist doesn’t make the problem go away. It makes you go away as you become irrelevant. There is the AGPL, but it's not quite right. It also has the letters G-P-L in it, which spooks a ton of people still influenced by Microsoft's billion dollars worth of anti-GPL FUD. (I'm convinced you could just rename the GPL and all those problems would go away.)

dragonwriter 6y ago
> The open source world needs to come together and create a license that is well crafted. It has created several. It hasn't created licenses well-crafted for purposes directly contrary to the purpose of having open source software, because that's not what the open source community is interested in. > So far the FOSS world seems to be pretending this problem doesn’t exist. From the point of view of the FOSS world, the issue here is not a problem; creators having an exclusive ability to monetize software as a service isn't a purpose open source is intended to serve; in fact, avoiding the lock-in that results from such exclusivity is a big part of the point.
- api 6y ago
  > From the point of view of the FOSS world, the issue here is not a problem; creators having an exclusive ability to monetize software as a service isn't a purpose open source is intended to serve; in fact, avoiding the lock-in that results from such exclusivity is a big part of the point. If the creators get nothing, then why bother? Why slave away to make software just to give free labor to billion dollar companies while you get nothing? Is free labor for Amazon what open source is about? If open source refuses to adapt to the realities of today's software ecosystem, it will die out... or at least "serious" open source projects will die out and all that will remain is hobbyist level stuff, abandonware, and half-done academic projects. Personally I do think FOSS in its present form is going to die for most major projects. You'll still see FOSS libraries, building blocks, academic projects, and some major projects that really are large and old enough to have enough real grassroots contributors to keep them going. For major projects in the future you're going to have something more like a shareware model but with source-available. Nobody creating a new large-scale project today is going to give it a license that they know will result in somebody else productizing it, making a fortune, and giving them nothing. At least Amazon acknowledges where things came from... in some cases the productizers even rename the project and don't even give the author credit. FOSS and its gift culture ethos just isn't working in today's world. The software market of today is a dark forest.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > FOSS and its gift culture ethos just isn't working in today's world. It absolutely is working the same way it always has (to which “gift culture” matters only around the edges). It doesn't work for people who want to start a business with a business model of using copyright law to extract monopoly rents, but then, it never has, and that's always been the point. And, yes, it's not, for that reason, a good fit for narrow software entrepreneurship, but that's always been the domain of proprietary software. What's new is startups building on OSS to build mind share, and then trying to shift to rent extraction while wanting to pretend to still be interested in OSS.
    - api 6y ago
      I don't think I totally disagree, but here's the problem: if OSS is not a good fit for software entrepreneurship, then it puts a really severe cap on how advanced, polished, easy to use, or well supported OSS can be, because pushing really hard on software development and implementing tens of thousands of hours of fine-grained polish is far beyond what the vast majority of people can afford to (or are willing to) volunteer for free. It places really polished products beyond the realm of OSS. If you're fine with that, then there's no problem. Perhaps OSS has achieved its goal, namely creating a free and open software ecosystem for nerds and by nerds. I can't think of a single OSS project used (directly) by a large number of the general public that does not have a company behind it. I think that says something.
      - dragonwriter 6y ago
        > if OSS is not a good fit for software entrepreneurship, then it puts a really severe cap on how advanced, polished, easy to use, or well supported OSS can be, because pushing really hard on software development and implementing tens of thousands of hours of fine-grained polish is far beyond what the vast majority of people can afford to (or are willing to) volunteer for free. Even if they start out as labors of love, OSS that gets beyond the niche stage tends not to have most work done “for free”, it's done (or paid for) by people/firms who are using the software in their business, but where the software is supporting, not the thing being sold. (Whether the OSS is infrastructure that is invisible to customers, or whether what is being sold is support and professional services tied to the OSS software.)

by api 6y ago

dragonwriter 6y ago

> The open source world needs to come together and create a license that is well crafted. It has created several. It hasn't created licenses well-crafted for purposes directly contrary to the purpose of having open source software, because that's not what the open source community is interested in. > So far the FOSS world seems to be pretending this problem doesn’t exist. From the point of view of the FOSS world, the issue here is not a problem; creators having an exclusive ability to monetize software as a service isn't a purpose open source is intended to serve; in fact, avoiding the lock-in that results from such exclusivity is a big part of the point.

api 6y ago
> From the point of view of the FOSS world, the issue here is not a problem; creators having an exclusive ability to monetize software as a service isn't a purpose open source is intended to serve; in fact, avoiding the lock-in that results from such exclusivity is a big part of the point. If the creators get nothing, then why bother? Why slave away to make software just to give free labor to billion dollar companies while you get nothing? Is free labor for Amazon what open source is about? If open source refuses to adapt to the realities of today's software ecosystem, it will die out... or at least "serious" open source projects will die out and all that will remain is hobbyist level stuff, abandonware, and half-done academic projects. Personally I do think FOSS in its present form is going to die for most major projects. You'll still see FOSS libraries, building blocks, academic projects, and some major projects that really are large and old enough to have enough real grassroots contributors to keep them going. For major projects in the future you're going to have something more like a shareware model but with source-available. Nobody creating a new large-scale project today is going to give it a license that they know will result in somebody else productizing it, making a fortune, and giving them nothing. At least Amazon acknowledges where things came from... in some cases the productizers even rename the project and don't even give the author credit. FOSS and its gift culture ethos just isn't working in today's world. The software market of today is a dark forest.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > FOSS and its gift culture ethos just isn't working in today's world. It absolutely is working the same way it always has (to which “gift culture” matters only around the edges). It doesn't work for people who want to start a business with a business model of using copyright law to extract monopoly rents, but then, it never has, and that's always been the point. And, yes, it's not, for that reason, a good fit for narrow software entrepreneurship, but that's always been the domain of proprietary software. What's new is startups building on OSS to build mind share, and then trying to shift to rent extraction while wanting to pretend to still be interested in OSS.
  - api 6y ago
    I don't think I totally disagree, but here's the problem: if OSS is not a good fit for software entrepreneurship, then it puts a really severe cap on how advanced, polished, easy to use, or well supported OSS can be, because pushing really hard on software development and implementing tens of thousands of hours of fine-grained polish is far beyond what the vast majority of people can afford to (or are willing to) volunteer for free. It places really polished products beyond the realm of OSS. If you're fine with that, then there's no problem. Perhaps OSS has achieved its goal, namely creating a free and open software ecosystem for nerds and by nerds. I can't think of a single OSS project used (directly) by a large number of the general public that does not have a company behind it. I think that says something.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > if OSS is not a good fit for software entrepreneurship, then it puts a really severe cap on how advanced, polished, easy to use, or well supported OSS can be, because pushing really hard on software development and implementing tens of thousands of hours of fine-grained polish is far beyond what the vast majority of people can afford to (or are willing to) volunteer for free. Even if they start out as labors of love, OSS that gets beyond the niche stage tends not to have most work done “for free”, it's done (or paid for) by people/firms who are using the software in their business, but where the software is supporting, not the thing being sold. (Whether the OSS is infrastructure that is invisible to customers, or whether what is being sold is support and professional services tied to the OSS software.)