6 ms·

I suspect the Free Software foundation would strongly disagree. Copyleft licenses such as AGPL are open source licenses, because they preserve user freedom.

I suspect the Free Software foundation would strongly disagree. Copyleft licenses such as AGPL are open source licenses, because they preserve user freedom. The SSPL is not an open source license (and likely not even Copyleft) because it restricts user freedom that have usually been guaranteed by FLOSS. https://opensource.org/node/1099 https://opensource.org/node/1099 Open source isn’t about guaranteeing a for-profit company a business model. “Leeching” is irrelevant (and also just Elastic marketing propaganda). User freedom is the whole point.

syshum 6y ago
Elastic marketing did not come up with describing AWS or any of the other big tech companies as leeches. That has been around for a very long time I am aware FSF would disagree with my position, AGPL is better than SSPL. As to OSI, I have losts of issue with OSI as an organization, and when they state "But Elastic’s relicensing is not evidence of any failure of the open source licensing model or a gap in open source licenses. " they are simply wrong There is a clear gap in open source licenses when it comes to dealing with SaaS, the fact they do no see this gap is very telling. the Free Software community saw this problem and thus the AGPL was born, something like AGPL is needed for open source, but OSI refused to even acknowledge there is a problem let alone look for solutions to it //And no Free Software is not the same as Open Source Software, they should not be linked as being the same edit: >>User freedom is the whole point. Free Software is about user freedom Open Source is about Developer Freedom, that has always been the big difference. Apache, MIT, BSD etc are all licenses that allow devs to take code, use it in commerical products. That is why you see places like GitHub default to these non-copy left licenses. Free Software is about copy left, GPL and the like. Because it gives USERS freedom
- parasubvert 6y ago
  “They are simply wrong”? That’s your argument? I think you have zero interest in Free Software. You want “Free Software except in the ways I don’t like”. AGPL was about ensuring user freedom by requiring server hosted source code modifications to be contributed back to the community. SSPL isn’t about that. SSPL removes freedoms from using the software for no principled reason other than to allow a copyright holder to make more money by selling you a less restrictive proprietary license. It isn’t copyleft, it isn’t free, it isn’t open.
  - syshum 6y ago
    Hmm clever editing I can see we are not discussing in good faith. You built a nice strawman to tear down around my “They are simply wrong” quote using it out of context How about you address what I actually said OSI is wrong about, they are wrong about the fact that there is no gap in Open Source licensing when it comes to SaaS Sevices. SSPL may not be the best solution to it, but completely rejecting the clear problem is how you end up with less than perfect solutions like SSPL.
    - parasubvert 6y ago
      I am trying to argue in good faith. I’m not editing anything, I just don’t understand your argument. I don’t see what the clear problem is with open source licensing. AGPL solves the problem of SaaS providers modifying your software without freeing their modifications, if that’s what you want. AGPL is also an OSI approved license. What more is missing?
      - zwaps 6y ago
        Well sorry but it's actually stated right here: https://opensource.org/node/1099 https://opensource.org/node/1099 If you want to have a business model like Elastic, then open source is simple not right for you. This is what the OSI Board of Directors says. It's a different discussion whether this is a good business model, but it's not like op has no point here: What's missing is an open-source license for products whose profits accrue due to being run as SaaS. If you're just going to say: "This is not possible with open-source licenses", then that's the gap. What people actually want to do is exclude about 10 or less companies from selling their software at no own cost, while keeping it open-source for everyone else. And OSI says this is not a use-case for any of their open-source licenses. Maybe there should be a license for that. I don't know.
        parasubvert 6y ago
        The OP has a point in that everyone wants to be popular, famous, make lots of money, and also do it while being perceived as a saint. Forcing profit accrual in your software license is easy enough. The hard part is to grow a community & popularity the way open source licenses have proven, when you have such restrictions in place. This is only a "gap" in the sense of the grand injustice of the universe, as the Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you want". 'What's missing is an open-source license for products whose profits accrue due to being run as SaaS. If you're just going to say: "This is not possible with open-source licenses", then that's the gap.' Think about what you're saying for a second. 1. Free software & open source is fundamentally opposed to user restrictions of any form, this is "Freedom Zero" and literally the whole reason the movement was created and got popular. 2. You can't create an "I GET THE MONEY" restriction and still be open source or free software, or accrue anywhere near the popularity and community goodwill you'd otherwise get 3. Therefore this is a problem? Open source contributors have limited interest in your profits or business model if it means compromising the most essential point of it all. Open source is not a business model, and never was meant to be. Plenty of open source companies made lots of money without restricting user freedom, and they did it while AWS and others existed. All of the tech leadership and excitement in dev communities today (Docker, Serverless, Kubernetes, Kafka, Spring, Rust, Golang) etc. is driven by open source, not by the clouds' proprietary services. 'What people actually want to do is exclude about 10 or less companies from selling their software at no own cost, while keeping it open-source for everyone else... Maybe there should be a license for that.' Licenses like this have literally existed for over 30 years. "Everybody but Microsoft", "everybody but IBM", "everybody but the military". They're out there in spades. Good luck, have fun. Build amazing software and build a community! Except, these violate "Freedom Zero", the most essential point to why FLOSS was created: freedom to use, no restrictions. You might have some challenges gaining community support because of this. https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2019/fall/building-ethical-software-based-on-the-four-freedoms https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2019/fall/building-ethical-soft... The excerpt worth reading: "The lack of usage restrictions in its licenses is key to the success of free software. A world of proliferating and potentially conflicting usage restrictions, each seeking to address a different social cause or need, would introduce so much friction that the tremendous democratic social benefit brought about by the free sharing of software – including the empowerment of individuals to effect social change in unjust institutions – would be undermined. Just because a license is not the right place to enforce ethical software usage doesn't mean we don't recognize the problem, or respect the people raising it. We should encourage and participate in conversations about the ethical usage of software. With the ground rules of free software as the baseline, anyone can build systems to specifically promote ethical use."
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
bigiain 6y ago
I _mostly_ agree here. But... I do note that the original "open source definitions" were drafted back in the late 90s (and from memory, built on older pre existing Debian docs of similar nature). The world was different back then, I wonder what the authors of those docs would have considered "user freedom" to be in the age of AWS/GAE/Azure? (I guess Stallman, for all his flaws, is a reasonable guide to what the free software movement would have thought. It'd be illuminating to hear his opinion on these new licenses. I suspect I know the answer, and it'd very strongly agree with your comment...)
- parasubvert 6y ago
  I think they’d ask: In what way is AWS, GAE or Azure restricting your freedom to use free software? If those companies customize your code and don’t recontribute it, that’s what the AGPL is for. The SSPL doesn’t actually help with this problem. It removes your freedom to use the software in certain ways. It is a pecuniary license designed to sell you a more permissive license.
- simlevesque 6y ago
  Users is not just end users. AWS and others are users too and Stallman wants them to have the same freedom to use and modify software as I do. We have the same rights and responsibilities. Even Elastic is a user of the software. I respect anyone who follows a license, I respect anyone who want to relicense a software and I respect someone who forks a project. I don't see any fault anywhere here.
- __blockcipher__ 6y ago
  So, let's pretend I'm Amazon and I'm offering a SAAS Elasticsearch product. You need someone to manage your Elasticsearch for me, so you pay me. Internally, I'm running vanilla, unmodified Elasticsearch, which talks to a management layer of proprietary code that interfaces with the rest of AWS. What right is being violated here? You as a user can run your own Elasticsearch software; I haven't modified it and thus I don't need to publish anything specific. What the SSPL says is I must publicize my entire SAAS product - but the user isn't paying me to run their own Elasticsearch SAAS product, they're paying me to run Elasticsearch. So to call SSPL copyleft is totally absurd. Now, there's a broader discussion that you raised of whether the open source definitions are out-of-date or not. Personally, I don't believe so. I don't see how any of the newer developments in the space (public clouds, managed offerings, etc) materially change anything; indeed the whole point of OSS is it's based off of deep principles.

syshum 6y ago

Elastic marketing did not come up with describing AWS or any of the other big tech companies as leeches. That has been around for a very long time I am aware FSF would disagree with my position, AGPL is better than SSPL. As to OSI, I have losts of issue with OSI as an organization, and when they state "But Elastic’s relicensing is not evidence of any failure of the open source licensing model or a gap in open source licenses. " they are simply wrong There is a clear gap in open source licenses when it comes to dealing with SaaS, the fact they do no see this gap is very telling. the Free Software community saw this problem and thus the AGPL was born, something like AGPL is needed for open source, but OSI refused to even acknowledge there is a problem let alone look for solutions to it //And no Free Software is not the same as Open Source Software, they should not be linked as being the same edit: >>User freedom is the whole point. Free Software is about user freedom Open Source is about Developer Freedom, that has always been the big difference. Apache, MIT, BSD etc are all licenses that allow devs to take code, use it in commerical products. That is why you see places like GitHub default to these non-copy left licenses. Free Software is about copy left, GPL and the like. Because it gives USERS freedom

parasubvert 6y ago
“They are simply wrong”? That’s your argument? I think you have zero interest in Free Software. You want “Free Software except in the ways I don’t like”. AGPL was about ensuring user freedom by requiring server hosted source code modifications to be contributed back to the community. SSPL isn’t about that. SSPL removes freedoms from using the software for no principled reason other than to allow a copyright holder to make more money by selling you a less restrictive proprietary license. It isn’t copyleft, it isn’t free, it isn’t open.
- syshum 6y ago
  Hmm clever editing I can see we are not discussing in good faith. You built a nice strawman to tear down around my “They are simply wrong” quote using it out of context How about you address what I actually said OSI is wrong about, they are wrong about the fact that there is no gap in Open Source licensing when it comes to SaaS Sevices. SSPL may not be the best solution to it, but completely rejecting the clear problem is how you end up with less than perfect solutions like SSPL.
  - parasubvert 6y ago
    I am trying to argue in good faith. I’m not editing anything, I just don’t understand your argument. I don’t see what the clear problem is with open source licensing. AGPL solves the problem of SaaS providers modifying your software without freeing their modifications, if that’s what you want. AGPL is also an OSI approved license. What more is missing?
    - zwaps 6y ago
      Well sorry but it's actually stated right here: https://opensource.org/node/1099 https://opensource.org/node/1099 If you want to have a business model like Elastic, then open source is simple not right for you. This is what the OSI Board of Directors says. It's a different discussion whether this is a good business model, but it's not like op has no point here: What's missing is an open-source license for products whose profits accrue due to being run as SaaS. If you're just going to say: "This is not possible with open-source licenses", then that's the gap. What people actually want to do is exclude about 10 or less companies from selling their software at no own cost, while keeping it open-source for everyone else. And OSI says this is not a use-case for any of their open-source licenses. Maybe there should be a license for that. I don't know.
      - parasubvert 6y ago
        The OP has a point in that everyone wants to be popular, famous, make lots of money, and also do it while being perceived as a saint. Forcing profit accrual in your software license is easy enough. The hard part is to grow a community & popularity the way open source licenses have proven, when you have such restrictions in place. This is only a "gap" in the sense of the grand injustice of the universe, as the Rolling Stones said, "You can't always get what you want". 'What's missing is an open-source license for products whose profits accrue due to being run as SaaS. If you're just going to say: "This is not possible with open-source licenses", then that's the gap.' Think about what you're saying for a second. 1. Free software & open source is fundamentally opposed to user restrictions of any form, this is "Freedom Zero" and literally the whole reason the movement was created and got popular. 2. You can't create an "I GET THE MONEY" restriction and still be open source or free software, or accrue anywhere near the popularity and community goodwill you'd otherwise get 3. Therefore this is a problem? Open source contributors have limited interest in your profits or business model if it means compromising the most essential point of it all. Open source is not a business model, and never was meant to be. Plenty of open source companies made lots of money without restricting user freedom, and they did it while AWS and others existed. All of the tech leadership and excitement in dev communities today (Docker, Serverless, Kubernetes, Kafka, Spring, Rust, Golang) etc. is driven by open source, not by the clouds' proprietary services. 'What people actually want to do is exclude about 10 or less companies from selling their software at no own cost, while keeping it open-source for everyone else... Maybe there should be a license for that.' Licenses like this have literally existed for over 30 years. "Everybody but Microsoft", "everybody but IBM", "everybody but the military". They're out there in spades. Good luck, have fun. Build amazing software and build a community! Except, these violate "Freedom Zero", the most essential point to why FLOSS was created: freedom to use, no restrictions. You might have some challenges gaining community support because of this. https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2019/fall/building-ethical-software-based-on-the-four-freedoms https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2019/fall/building-ethical-soft... The excerpt worth reading: "The lack of usage restrictions in its licenses is key to the success of free software. A world of proliferating and potentially conflicting usage restrictions, each seeking to address a different social cause or need, would introduce so much friction that the tremendous democratic social benefit brought about by the free sharing of software – including the empowerment of individuals to effect social change in unjust institutions – would be undermined. Just because a license is not the right place to enforce ethical software usage doesn't mean we don't recognize the problem, or respect the people raising it. We should encourage and participate in conversations about the ethical usage of software. With the ground rules of free software as the baseline, anyone can build systems to specifically promote ethical use."
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

bigiain 6y ago

I _mostly_ agree here. But... I do note that the original "open source definitions" were drafted back in the late 90s (and from memory, built on older pre existing Debian docs of similar nature). The world was different back then, I wonder what the authors of those docs would have considered "user freedom" to be in the age of AWS/GAE/Azure? (I guess Stallman, for all his flaws, is a reasonable guide to what the free software movement would have thought. It'd be illuminating to hear his opinion on these new licenses. I suspect I know the answer, and it'd very strongly agree with your comment...)

parasubvert 6y ago
I think they’d ask: In what way is AWS, GAE or Azure restricting your freedom to use free software? If those companies customize your code and don’t recontribute it, that’s what the AGPL is for. The SSPL doesn’t actually help with this problem. It removes your freedom to use the software in certain ways. It is a pecuniary license designed to sell you a more permissive license.
simlevesque 6y ago
Users is not just end users. AWS and others are users too and Stallman wants them to have the same freedom to use and modify software as I do. We have the same rights and responsibilities. Even Elastic is a user of the software. I respect anyone who follows a license, I respect anyone who want to relicense a software and I respect someone who forks a project. I don't see any fault anywhere here.
__blockcipher__ 6y ago
So, let's pretend I'm Amazon and I'm offering a SAAS Elasticsearch product. You need someone to manage your Elasticsearch for me, so you pay me. Internally, I'm running vanilla, unmodified Elasticsearch, which talks to a management layer of proprietary code that interfaces with the rest of AWS. What right is being violated here? You as a user can run your own Elasticsearch software; I haven't modified it and thus I don't need to publish anything specific. What the SSPL says is I must publicize my entire SAAS product - but the user isn't paying me to run their own Elasticsearch SAAS product, they're paying me to run Elasticsearch. So to call SSPL copyleft is totally absurd. Now, there's a broader discussion that you raised of whether the open source definitions are out-of-date or not. Personally, I don't believe so. I don't see how any of the newer developments in the space (public clouds, managed offerings, etc) materially change anything; indeed the whole point of OSS is it's based off of deep principles.