5 ms·

Open Source Is Discrimination

45 points by nikivi 6y ago

jph 6y ago
> After all, software could not be both open and closed. It turns out software can be both open and closed, and it's a good approach IMHO: the software creator can provide an open source license and a closed source license. Then users can choose the license that's best for their purposes. This approach is currently playing out with some for-profit software companies that want to offer open source to end users, yet don't want to enable direct competitors (e.g. Elastic vs. Amazon) or do want to enable for-pay customers to bypass sharing work (e.g. I write GPL software, and one of my regulated-industry customers prefers to pay for a proprietary license rather than use GPL).
- corty 6y ago
  Exactly. A lot of the whining can be avoided by a dual AGPL3 (maybe GPL3) plus proprietary "call for a quote and contract negotiations" license. Most big cloud shops will avoid AGPL, so they will pay, the rest will be as happy with AGPL as with BSD or Apache.
  - cardanome 6y ago
    Mostly agreed but in the case of Elastic against Amazon that would not have helped much. Amazon has no issues contributing back and could probably cope with AGPL. They don't need a advantage in features, they can just destroy any competition with their market advantages. So AGPL is a good first step but maybe we need even stricter license against monopolistic corporations.
  - Blikkentrekker 6y ago
    That is not open source vis-à-vis closed source; that is copyleft vis-à-vis permissive both of which are open source.
- type0 6y ago
  That's not what one usually mean by the dual licenses
sneak 6y ago
> In the new manner of speaking, this means open source has “won”. Nearly all software is open source, in the sense that it builds on open source, uses open source tools, relies on open source infrastructure, and loudly proclaims how awesome all this free stuff is for business. I prefer FOSS vastly, yet the substantial majority of the software I interact with daily is nonfree (not "open source" in the parlance of TFA). Cars, telephones, Uber, App Store, Google, YouTube, streaming services, payment cards, cameras, thermostats, light bulbs... almost all software is proprietary these days.
bzb6 6y ago
This guy talks a lot to say nothing
rychco 6y ago
That's a clickbait title if I've ever seen one.
kube-system 6y ago
I've always disliked the term "open source" because it's vague and nobody can agree on a definition. I think we'd all spend a lot less time arguing over definitions if people just used more specific descriptions like "copyleft", "source available", "permissive license"
- corty 6y ago
  There is a definition by OSI who invented the term as a commercial-sounding touch to free software as defined by the FSF. OSI also certifies licenses as compliant with the definition. They also invented the term and the definition. So I wholly disagree on the vagueness and nonexistence of a definition. There are some minor points where people sometimes argue bitterly, e.g. in the differences between DFSG free and OSS. But overall, there is a consensus that has been established decades ago. Just some players nowadays want to muddy the waters with some lies about there being doubt for their own purposes. Which is what the article is writing about.
  - kube-system 6y ago
    The term "open source" is used every day to refer to software that is not released under an OSI approved license. I'd bet that 99%+ of the people who use the phrase have never even been to OSI's website. The existence of OSI's definition doesn't mean that colloquial use follows that definition.
    - corty 6y ago
      You are moving goalposts. There may be people who misuse the term. But that doesn't mean it isn't well-defined or agreed-upon by a majority.
      - kube-system 6y ago
        I'm not moving the goalposts. If a sizable number of people use the term a different way, that makes the term vague. You will find people arguing about the definition on every corner of the internet, and in many professional environments too. It is mind-numbingly common for people to call source-available software "open source"... dictionaries even recognize this usage: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source
mixedCase 6y ago
A huge blogpost just to rant that neither OSI nor a large part of the public think that the license he likes to use to discriminate across lines of businesses could be labeled "Open Source". Just call your thing "source available" or make up your own special club and stop complaining you don't get the same treatment than licenses that don't discriminate people. Or you know, decide who has to/doesn't have to share code without caring about what the product that's building upon your software is about or who's building it. Like the rest of us who actually care about Open Source beyond using it as a PR tool for your business.
- shiftingleft 6y ago
  I haven't informed myself too much so please call out if/where I'm wrong. In my mind the super quick version of this entire thing seems to be: - GPL requires you to publicize your changes if you distribute the software. - SSPL is more or less the same as GPL, but also requires you to publicize your changes if you offer the software as a service to others. To me it really seems as if SSPL is a more modern GPL, fit for the SaaS world. What am I missing?
  - detaro 6y ago
    SSPL: > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. That's a lot more than "your changes" and is impossible to meet if you use any commercial software or a service provided by others pretty much anywhere in your stack.
    - shiftingleft 6y ago
      Oh, yeah. I can't imagine publishing the entire source code of your entire stack even being possible. What if you have some 3rd party vendor software in there? Are you required to publish their source too?
mariusor 6y ago
With my "I'm not a native speaker, but I'm a pedant" hat on, I feel like the author doesn't seem to distinguish between two of the meanings of the word discrimination[1]: > 1. (Sociology) unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice > 3. the ability to see fine distinctions and differences It's fine to make distinctions between FOSS fearing developers and evil source developers, but I'm pretty sure that's not what the OSI means. [1] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination https://www.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination

45 points by nikivi 6y ago

jph 6y ago

> After all, software could not be both open and closed. It turns out software can be both open and closed, and it's a good approach IMHO: the software creator can provide an open source license and a closed source license. Then users can choose the license that's best for their purposes. This approach is currently playing out with some for-profit software companies that want to offer open source to end users, yet don't want to enable direct competitors (e.g. Elastic vs. Amazon) or do want to enable for-pay customers to bypass sharing work (e.g. I write GPL software, and one of my regulated-industry customers prefers to pay for a proprietary license rather than use GPL).

corty 6y ago
Exactly. A lot of the whining can be avoided by a dual AGPL3 (maybe GPL3) plus proprietary "call for a quote and contract negotiations" license. Most big cloud shops will avoid AGPL, so they will pay, the rest will be as happy with AGPL as with BSD or Apache.
- cardanome 6y ago
  Mostly agreed but in the case of Elastic against Amazon that would not have helped much. Amazon has no issues contributing back and could probably cope with AGPL. They don't need a advantage in features, they can just destroy any competition with their market advantages. So AGPL is a good first step but maybe we need even stricter license against monopolistic corporations.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  That is not open source vis-à-vis closed source; that is copyleft vis-à-vis permissive both of which are open source.
type0 6y ago
That's not what one usually mean by the dual licenses

sneak 6y ago

> In the new manner of speaking, this means open source has “won”. Nearly all software is open source, in the sense that it builds on open source, uses open source tools, relies on open source infrastructure, and loudly proclaims how awesome all this free stuff is for business. I prefer FOSS vastly, yet the substantial majority of the software I interact with daily is nonfree (not "open source" in the parlance of TFA). Cars, telephones, Uber, App Store, Google, YouTube, streaming services, payment cards, cameras, thermostats, light bulbs... almost all software is proprietary these days.

bzb6 6y ago

This guy talks a lot to say nothing

rychco 6y ago

That's a clickbait title if I've ever seen one.

kube-system 6y ago

I've always disliked the term "open source" because it's vague and nobody can agree on a definition. I think we'd all spend a lot less time arguing over definitions if people just used more specific descriptions like "copyleft", "source available", "permissive license"

corty 6y ago
There is a definition by OSI who invented the term as a commercial-sounding touch to free software as defined by the FSF. OSI also certifies licenses as compliant with the definition. They also invented the term and the definition. So I wholly disagree on the vagueness and nonexistence of a definition. There are some minor points where people sometimes argue bitterly, e.g. in the differences between DFSG free and OSS. But overall, there is a consensus that has been established decades ago. Just some players nowadays want to muddy the waters with some lies about there being doubt for their own purposes. Which is what the article is writing about.
- kube-system 6y ago
  The term "open source" is used every day to refer to software that is not released under an OSI approved license. I'd bet that 99%+ of the people who use the phrase have never even been to OSI's website. The existence of OSI's definition doesn't mean that colloquial use follows that definition.
  - corty 6y ago
    You are moving goalposts. There may be people who misuse the term. But that doesn't mean it isn't well-defined or agreed-upon by a majority.
    - kube-system 6y ago
      I'm not moving the goalposts. If a sizable number of people use the term a different way, that makes the term vague. You will find people arguing about the definition on every corner of the internet, and in many professional environments too. It is mind-numbingly common for people to call source-available software "open source"... dictionaries even recognize this usage: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open-source

mixedCase 6y ago

A huge blogpost just to rant that neither OSI nor a large part of the public think that the license he likes to use to discriminate across lines of businesses could be labeled "Open Source". Just call your thing "source available" or make up your own special club and stop complaining you don't get the same treatment than licenses that don't discriminate people. Or you know, decide who has to/doesn't have to share code without caring about what the product that's building upon your software is about or who's building it. Like the rest of us who actually care about Open Source beyond using it as a PR tool for your business.

shiftingleft 6y ago
I haven't informed myself too much so please call out if/where I'm wrong. In my mind the super quick version of this entire thing seems to be: - GPL requires you to publicize your changes if you distribute the software. - SSPL is more or less the same as GPL, but also requires you to publicize your changes if you offer the software as a service to others. To me it really seems as if SSPL is a more modern GPL, fit for the SaaS world. What am I missing?
- detaro 6y ago
  SSPL: > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, including, without limitation, management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available. That's a lot more than "your changes" and is impossible to meet if you use any commercial software or a service provided by others pretty much anywhere in your stack.
  - shiftingleft 6y ago
    Oh, yeah. I can't imagine publishing the entire source code of your entire stack even being possible. What if you have some 3rd party vendor software in there? Are you required to publish their source too?

mariusor 6y ago

With my "I'm not a native speaker, but I'm a pedant" hat on, I feel like the author doesn't seem to distinguish between two of the meanings of the word discrimination[1]: > 1. (Sociology) unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice > 3. the ability to see fine distinctions and differences It's fine to make distinctions between FOSS fearing developers and evil source developers, but I'm pretty sure that's not what the OSI means. [1] https://www.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination https://www.thefreedictionary.com/discrimination