5 ms·

I feel like by this point, in 2021, if you are a developer making contributions to "open source," and you're still getting surprised by these sorts of shenaniga

I feel like by this point, in 2021, if you are a developer making contributions to "open source," and you're still getting surprised by these sorts of shenanigans, you only have yourself to blame. This happens So. Freaking. Often. Companies take open source software private All The Damn Time. They hire the key devs away with just enough money. Then they release another version under a different license. And before you know it a previously open source project is now all but closed source. It doesn't even have to be with shenanigans this nefarious. Once you have the two or three devs all you have to do is release a value-added component and all but cripple the community one. It's roughly a million times cheaper than an acquisition. If you want your hard-earned contributions to avoid this fate, do not contribute to "open source" projects. Find a copylefted project and contribute to that. Otherwise your work will end up being coopted by a profit-seeking enterprise. Open source is the domain of large companies building fiefdoms. Just look at all those Apache projects and who contributes to them and who they're for. You would have to pay me big bucks to contribute to that ecosystem. GPL or bust.

csdreamer7 6y ago
> do not contribute to open source projects. Find a copylefted project and contribute to that. GPL software is still open source. The problem is when you contribute to a private company's MIT or Apache licensed software. I would change that to: 'do not contribute to permissively licensed projects. Find a copylefted project and contribute to that.'
- vinceguidry 6y ago
  I thought the scare quotes around "open source" in my first statement were enough to convey that. But point taken, I'll adjust my messaging in the future.
  - jcfields 6y ago
    I understood it that way since Stallman has criticized the term "open source" and distanced it from "free software": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- bosswipe 6y ago
  The tern Open Source was created to combat the GPL's perceived corporate unfriendliness.
- SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
  Much of the internet makes fun of "choosing beggar" "influencers" who want to pay people with "exposure" instead of money. Permissive licenses are the reverse: they're asking others to pay you only in "exposure" instead of money. If expect to gain any return (other than some CV padding and personal satisfaction) due to contributing to permissively licensed projects you're a sucker. Permissively licensed software is charity work. It's good, useful work in many cases, but it's not going to make you money. Give money and time to causes you support. Go contribute to the BSDs. Volunteer at your local animal shelter. But don't think that you're going to get rich from it. You'll save some puppies and help some people (and maybe some megacorps) but that's all you can expect.
- rurban 6y ago
  If your company lets you sign the FSF legal papers. Most will not, and in the end you will not be able to contribute to GNU projects. It also needs weeks to clear the FSF paper work. About 1% of my users did it successfully.
35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
> GPL or bust AGPL3, but your point stands ;-)
ignoramous 6y ago
> GPL or bust. GPL or its stronger copyleft counterpart, AGPL, can be later closed source too, afaik, at least under two scenarios: 1. Original developer owns all copyrights (CLAs). 2. There's no other contributor but the original developer. MPLv2 and EPLv2 resist close sourcing the already open sourced bits to the same extent as xGPL, except xGPL is intrusively more viral than these two. Also, I read somewhere that GPL lets one impose strange restrictions: 1. A vendor distributes binary of GPLd code to "X" (among other non GPLd things), and can impose upon "X" that if "X" does share vendor's GPL code without approval, "X" would breach contract (not necessarily of GPLd code, but of other non-GPLd things). 2. A vendor "rents" / "lends" binaries to "X", in which case the vendor doesn't have to share the binary's GPLd code. IANAL. Edit: Clarification. Ref: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2338/can-i-use-gpl-libraries-in-a-closed-source-project-if-only-the-output-is-distrib https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2338/can-i-us...
- wmf 6y ago
  1. If a vendor distributes binary of GPLd code to "X", they can impose upon "X" that if "X" does distribute vendor's GPL code without approval, "X" would breach contract. 2. A vendor can "rent" / "lend" a binary to "X", in which case the vendor wouldn't have to share the code. I'm pretty sure neither of those are legal. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllow...
  - 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
    Under the terms of the GPL, I believe the first is absolutely verboten, the second feels shaky. However, if you have the rights to dual-license the code, either of those would be just fine under whatever second license you'd like to cook up.
- ignoramous 6y ago
  As an example, here's ZeroTier moving from GPLv3 to BSL: https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/commit/52a166a71#diff-d0ed4cc3f https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/commit/52a166a71#dif...
mike_d 6y ago
> all you have to do is release a value-added component and all but cripple the community one This is Traefik in a nutshell. 1.x had built in support for sharing Lets Encrypt certificates among HA nodes. Once they decided to make a company out of the project 2.x was released which axed the feature as being "too hard to implement." Yet somehow it exists just fine in Traefik Enterprise ($5,000/node).
Bancakes 6y ago
Just look at this inane spam from the netgate moderators[0]. Post at Oct 27, 2017, 12:04 AM by ivor Obviously the company policy is "We just sell stuff, leave us alone.". That's why they "invest millions" in patches which are not yet ready for upstream. [0] https://forum.netgate.com/topic/121969/where-is-the-pfsense-2-4-x-freebsd-os-source-code/18?_=1611650295048&lang=en-US https://forum.netgate.com/topic/121969/where-is-the-pfsense-...

csdreamer7 6y ago

> do not contribute to open source projects. Find a copylefted project and contribute to that. GPL software is still open source. The problem is when you contribute to a private company's MIT or Apache licensed software. I would change that to: 'do not contribute to permissively licensed projects. Find a copylefted project and contribute to that.'

vinceguidry 6y ago
I thought the scare quotes around "open source" in my first statement were enough to convey that. But point taken, I'll adjust my messaging in the future.
- jcfields 6y ago
  I understood it that way since Stallman has criticized the term "open source" and distanced it from "free software": https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
bosswipe 6y ago
The tern Open Source was created to combat the GPL's perceived corporate unfriendliness.
SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
Much of the internet makes fun of "choosing beggar" "influencers" who want to pay people with "exposure" instead of money. Permissive licenses are the reverse: they're asking others to pay you only in "exposure" instead of money. If expect to gain any return (other than some CV padding and personal satisfaction) due to contributing to permissively licensed projects you're a sucker. Permissively licensed software is charity work. It's good, useful work in many cases, but it's not going to make you money. Give money and time to causes you support. Go contribute to the BSDs. Volunteer at your local animal shelter. But don't think that you're going to get rich from it. You'll save some puppies and help some people (and maybe some megacorps) but that's all you can expect.
rurban 6y ago
If your company lets you sign the FSF legal papers. Most will not, and in the end you will not be able to contribute to GNU projects. It also needs weeks to clear the FSF paper work. About 1% of my users did it successfully.

35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago

> GPL or bust AGPL3, but your point stands ;-)

ignoramous 6y ago

> GPL or bust. GPL or its stronger copyleft counterpart, AGPL, can be later closed source too, afaik, at least under two scenarios: 1. Original developer owns all copyrights (CLAs). 2. There's no other contributor but the original developer. MPLv2 and EPLv2 resist close sourcing the already open sourced bits to the same extent as xGPL, except xGPL is intrusively more viral than these two. Also, I read somewhere that GPL lets one impose strange restrictions: 1. A vendor distributes binary of GPLd code to "X" (among other non GPLd things), and can impose upon "X" that if "X" does share vendor's GPL code without approval, "X" would breach contract (not necessarily of GPLd code, but of other non-GPLd things). 2. A vendor "rents" / "lends" binaries to "X", in which case the vendor doesn't have to share the binary's GPLd code. IANAL. Edit: Clarification. Ref: https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2338/can-i-use-gpl-libraries-in-a-closed-source-project-if-only-the-output-is-distrib https://opensource.stackexchange.com/questions/2338/can-i-us...

wmf 6y ago
1. If a vendor distributes binary of GPLd code to "X", they can impose upon "X" that if "X" does distribute vendor's GPL code without approval, "X" would breach contract. 2. A vendor can "rent" / "lend" a binary to "X", in which case the vendor wouldn't have to share the code. I'm pretty sure neither of those are legal. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllowNDA https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#DoesTheGPLAllow...
- 35fbe7d3d5b9 6y ago
  Under the terms of the GPL, I believe the first is absolutely verboten, the second feels shaky. However, if you have the rights to dual-license the code, either of those would be just fine under whatever second license you'd like to cook up.
ignoramous 6y ago
As an example, here's ZeroTier moving from GPLv3 to BSL: https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/commit/52a166a71#diff-d0ed4cc3f https://github.com/zerotier/ZeroTierOne/commit/52a166a71#dif...

mike_d 6y ago

> all you have to do is release a value-added component and all but cripple the community one This is Traefik in a nutshell. 1.x had built in support for sharing Lets Encrypt certificates among HA nodes. Once they decided to make a company out of the project 2.x was released which axed the feature as being "too hard to implement." Yet somehow it exists just fine in Traefik Enterprise ($5,000/node).

Bancakes 6y ago

Just look at this inane spam from the netgate moderators[0]. Post at Oct 27, 2017, 12:04 AM by ivor Obviously the company policy is "We just sell stuff, leave us alone.". That's why they "invest millions" in patches which are not yet ready for upstream. [0] https://forum.netgate.com/topic/121969/where-is-the-pfsense-2-4-x-freebsd-os-source-code/18?_=1611650295048&lang=en-US https://forum.netgate.com/topic/121969/where-is-the-pfsense-...