4 ms·

> I think we need to be much more willing to consider software that's released with source available, but under a license that doesn't comply with the DFSG. Ha

> I think we need to be much more willing to consider software that's released with source available, but under a license that doesn't comply with the DFSG. Hard no. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) Once that line is relaxed, even slightly, more licenses like this will start showing up and running battering rams against all the other parts of that line that prove inconvenient compared to proprietary licenses. This license is proprietary. I don't care if there's source or not, it's still proprietary. It does not serve the interests of Open Source to compromise on its nature to obtain somewhat more quantity of a far lesser thing. The unusual foibles and preferences of specific people who are firmly in the history of FOSS are not relevant factors here. The relevant factor is drawing and maintaining a strict definitional line, because if we let that line become even slightly porous, it won't hold up to the resulting assault that would invite. > some kind of restriction on the usage of that code is necessary to protect the developers from freeloaders Absolutely. For instance, requirements that others share changes they make under the same license. There's been a massive push in recent decades towards permissive licenses, driven in large part by a combination of companies who find permissive licensing convenient and individual developers who project a certain counter-counterculture "do whatever you want, I don't want to think about licenses". We're now seeing the net result of that: many large companies actually using those permissive licenses as written, and not necessarily the ethos behind them.

HexDecOctBin 5y ago
MongoDB was licensed under AGPL – not a permissive license – when AWS started free loading on them. Copyleft licenses have shown themselves to be no panacea when it comes to exploitation from the multi-billion-dollar companies. If Free Software can't feed its developers, they will look for food elsewhere.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  Copyleft licenses are an improvement. They do not universally force payment in every case where a proprietary license could, but on the other hand, would MongoDB have become as popular in the first place if it wasn't FOSS? (And I object to the concept that hosting FOSS as a service is "freeloading". FOSS has always and only ever asked for giving back code, not money. Freeloading would be refusing to give back code, and companies regularly do fail on that front as well.) > If Free Software can't feed its developers, they will look for food elsewhere. FOSS can feed developers quite well. Some developers are deciding they'd prefer to sell proprietary software because they resent other companies benefiting from their work, and they're welcome to do that. What's not welcome is trying to claim the popularity benefits of FOSS without actually being FOSS; it is a good thing on balance that such efforts have met with chilly receptions. There are many, many conversations going on about additional ways to fund FOSS development. The ones that have a hope of succeeding aren't the ones that start by abandoning FOSS.
  - HexDecOctBin 5y ago
    > FOSS has always and only ever asked for giving back code, not money. Which is one of the reasons of disillusionment from them. On one hand, FOSS licenses only benefits developers who can fix the software to their liking – a non-developer user would likely just pay for it to make sure that they can get reliable, professional support. On the other hand, it assumes that the labour of developers is worthless (or at the very least, it's value is completely dissociated from its real-world impact). > There are many, many conversations going on about additional ways to fund FOSS development. Are any of them non-reliant on either the altruism of their users (donations, patronage, etc.), or selling value-added services that can easily be undercut by a party with deeper pockets (e.g., MongoDB vs AWS)?
    - ensignavenger 5y ago
      Open Source benefits anyone because they can pay some one else to provide reliable, professional support. It benefits everyone because if the original developers stop supporting it anyone can pay some one else to support it. It benefits all because we can decide to fork, or pay some one else to fork, the software and customize it to our needs.
      - HexDecOctBin 5y ago
        Does that happen though? log4j developers were working overtime to fix the security bug [1], while corporation expected them to release the fix ASAP for free. Who was paying? [1]: https://twitter.com/yazicivo/status/1469349956880408583 https://twitter.com/yazicivo/status/1469349956880408583
        aloisdg 5y ago
        I am glad they did though they didn't have to.
        ensignavenger 5y ago
        Like, all the time? I'm not sure what you mean- Log4j has several listed on their website- https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/thanks.html https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/thanks.html, and many dozens of people directly sponsor log4j contributors via Github Sponsors- https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/thanks.html https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/thanks.html There are also various log4j forks. And that is just the one project you mentioned, the world of Open Source software is very vast, with many contributors, forks, and financial sponsors.
- ensignavenger 5y ago
  As far as I am aware, AWS never used any of MongoDBs source code. They implemented the MongoDB API. The license is thus irrelevant. AWS could have implemented the Mongo API no matter what sort of license it was under- it could have been entirely closed source. Its no different than Google using the Java APIs in Android. The Supreme Court of the USA clearly ruled in Google's favor. It did not matter that the APIs were closed source software. Further, I would disagree with using the term "freeloading" for some one who uses an Open Source program under the terms of the license in which it is offered. (Again, not even the case for AWS as pertaining to MongoDB).
  - HexDecOctBin 5y ago
    > AWS never used any of MongoDBs source code Yes, they did, when MongoDB was licensed under AGPL. After MongoDB relicensed under SSPL, they release the API-compatible DocumentDB which is proprietary itself.
    - ensignavenger 5y ago
      Sorry, I did some duck searching, maybe I am misremembering, but I can't find any evidence that AWS ever used MongoDB or offered it as a service directly?
- randoramax 5y ago
  Afaik AWS re-implemented a subset of the mongodb API in DocumentDB, didn't use Mongodb code. The agpl was never an issue for AWS.
mwcampbell 5y ago
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) If I understand the synopsis of that article correctly, I don't think that concept applies here. Unless I've got my history wrong, our dominant standard for what's considered free software or open source, the Debian Free Software Guidelines (later repackaged as the Open Source Definition, wasn't the result of some kind of broad consensus among developers, users, and/or distributors. As badsectoracula pointed out [1] [2], source-available licenses with restrictions used to be more common. But Debian was always strongly aligned with the FSF's ideology; if I'm not mistaken, it was originally funded by the FSF, and of course, the full name of the main Debian distro is Debian GNU/Linux. > The unusual foibles and preferences of specific people who are firmly in the history of FOSS are not relevant factors here. The relevant factor is drawing and maintaining a strict definitional line My point is that this strict definition reflects nothing more than the MIT AI Lab hackers' elevation of their freedom (even at the expense of others, as in chapter 5 of _Hackers_) to an ethical absolute. Of course, most of those hackers outgrew that, but Stallman didn't, and he successfully spread the idea that all generally useful technical information, including software, should be freely available. And, if I'm not mistaken, that's where the DFSG came from. Since I didn't spell out part of my logic in my original comment, I will here: given that his nearly-forgotten campaign against passwords was obviously hopelessly naive, we should be open to the possibility that the same holds for the idea that software should be free for everyone to use. > There's been a massive push in recent decades towards permissive licenses Fair point. And I admit that this has made me stop and think about my choice of license for my own primary open-source project, AccessKit [3]. I was quick to permissively license that project from the beginning, before I considered funding. As it turned out, most of my development on that project so far has been funded by Google, which also specifically requested the Apache license (I went with the Apache/MIT dual license common in the Rust world). But in any case, I think a permissive license is actually the best choice for my goal with this project, which is to encourage and help developers to make as many GUI applications as possible accessible to disabled users. So yes, I want frictionless adoption above all else, but I think it's for a good reason. If a massive company used my project without paying me, I think I would consider it a net positive, because at least more applications would be accessible. But then, it's possible that by choosing a permissive license, I'm further poisoning the well, because I'm making more software available to freeloaders who would otherwise be obligated to pay someone (not necessarily me). FWIW, I'm thinking about developing an AccessKit-based module that has more of a niche use case (a screen reader for platforms or embedded devices that don't already have accessibility support), and for that, I might go with a dual copyleft/commercial licensing scheme. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928956 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928945 [3]: https://github.com/AccessKit/accesskit https://github.com/AccessKit/accesskit
laurencerowe 5y ago
> There's been a massive push in recent decades towards permissive licenses, driven in large part by a combination of companies who find permissive licensing convenient and individual developers who project a certain counter-counterculture "do whatever you want, I don't want to think about licenses". I'm not sure permissive Open Source licensing is counter-cultural. It's just a way for developers to take from and contribute to the software commons as part of their commercial day jobs. It doesn't challenge the status quo any more than the journals in which other disciplines might share and grow expertise on new techniques which are not considered trade secrets. More restrictive Free Software licenses can be counter-cultural since the virality of those licenses can prevent software being 'exploited' by commercial entities. But that counter-cultural label only really applies to communal Free Software. Open-core business models while valid aren't really of the same spirit. The balance between permissive and restrictive Open Source and Free Software licenses in the software commons of an area ultimately ends up reflecting the developer time that each model provides. And whether a particular license is permissive or restrictive will depend on the company. GPL JavaScript libraries are pretty restrictive as using them would likely require you to share your commercial application code under a permissive license. GPL Linux is effectively permissive unless your business model involves selling operating systems.
- JoshTriplett 5y ago
  I think we're mostly in agreement here. I was suggesting that FOSS itself was a counterculture (compared to proprietary software), and I was loosely describing the resentful "I don't want to think about licenses" (or moreso mocking people who care about licenses) as a conter-counterculture to that. I think that plays directly into the promotion of permissive licensing.

HexDecOctBin 5y ago

MongoDB was licensed under AGPL – not a permissive license – when AWS started free loading on them. Copyleft licenses have shown themselves to be no panacea when it comes to exploitation from the multi-billion-dollar companies. If Free Software can't feed its developers, they will look for food elsewhere.

JoshTriplett 5y ago
Copyleft licenses are an improvement. They do not universally force payment in every case where a proprietary license could, but on the other hand, would MongoDB have become as popular in the first place if it wasn't FOSS? (And I object to the concept that hosting FOSS as a service is "freeloading". FOSS has always and only ever asked for giving back code, not money. Freeloading would be refusing to give back code, and companies regularly do fail on that front as well.) > If Free Software can't feed its developers, they will look for food elsewhere. FOSS can feed developers quite well. Some developers are deciding they'd prefer to sell proprietary software because they resent other companies benefiting from their work, and they're welcome to do that. What's not welcome is trying to claim the popularity benefits of FOSS without actually being FOSS; it is a good thing on balance that such efforts have met with chilly receptions. There are many, many conversations going on about additional ways to fund FOSS development. The ones that have a hope of succeeding aren't the ones that start by abandoning FOSS.
- HexDecOctBin 5y ago
  > FOSS has always and only ever asked for giving back code, not money. Which is one of the reasons of disillusionment from them. On one hand, FOSS licenses only benefits developers who can fix the software to their liking – a non-developer user would likely just pay for it to make sure that they can get reliable, professional support. On the other hand, it assumes that the labour of developers is worthless (or at the very least, it's value is completely dissociated from its real-world impact). > There are many, many conversations going on about additional ways to fund FOSS development. Are any of them non-reliant on either the altruism of their users (donations, patronage, etc.), or selling value-added services that can easily be undercut by a party with deeper pockets (e.g., MongoDB vs AWS)?
  - ensignavenger 5y ago
    Open Source benefits anyone because they can pay some one else to provide reliable, professional support. It benefits everyone because if the original developers stop supporting it anyone can pay some one else to support it. It benefits all because we can decide to fork, or pay some one else to fork, the software and customize it to our needs.
    - HexDecOctBin 5y ago
      Does that happen though? log4j developers were working overtime to fix the security bug [1], while corporation expected them to release the fix ASAP for free. Who was paying? [1]: https://twitter.com/yazicivo/status/1469349956880408583 https://twitter.com/yazicivo/status/1469349956880408583
      - aloisdg 5y ago
        I am glad they did though they didn't have to.
      - ensignavenger 5y ago
        Like, all the time? I'm not sure what you mean- Log4j has several listed on their website- https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/thanks.html https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/thanks.html, and many dozens of people directly sponsor log4j contributors via Github Sponsors- https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/thanks.html https://logging.apache.org/log4j/2.x/thanks.html There are also various log4j forks. And that is just the one project you mentioned, the world of Open Source software is very vast, with many contributors, forks, and financial sponsors.
ensignavenger 5y ago
As far as I am aware, AWS never used any of MongoDBs source code. They implemented the MongoDB API. The license is thus irrelevant. AWS could have implemented the Mongo API no matter what sort of license it was under- it could have been entirely closed source. Its no different than Google using the Java APIs in Android. The Supreme Court of the USA clearly ruled in Google's favor. It did not matter that the APIs were closed source software. Further, I would disagree with using the term "freeloading" for some one who uses an Open Source program under the terms of the license in which it is offered. (Again, not even the case for AWS as pertaining to MongoDB).
- HexDecOctBin 5y ago
  > AWS never used any of MongoDBs source code Yes, they did, when MongoDB was licensed under AGPL. After MongoDB relicensed under SSPL, they release the API-compatible DocumentDB which is proprietary itself.
  - ensignavenger 5y ago
    Sorry, I did some duck searching, maybe I am misremembering, but I can't find any evidence that AWS ever used MongoDB or offered it as a service directly?
randoramax 5y ago
Afaik AWS re-implemented a subset of the mongodb API in DocumentDB, didn't use Mongodb code. The agpl was never an issue for AWS.

mwcampbell 5y ago

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) If I understand the synopsis of that article correctly, I don't think that concept applies here. Unless I've got my history wrong, our dominant standard for what's considered free software or open source, the Debian Free Software Guidelines (later repackaged as the Open Source Definition, wasn't the result of some kind of broad consensus among developers, users, and/or distributors. As badsectoracula pointed out [1] [2], source-available licenses with restrictions used to be more common. But Debian was always strongly aligned with the FSF's ideology; if I'm not mistaken, it was originally funded by the FSF, and of course, the full name of the main Debian distro is Debian GNU/Linux. > The unusual foibles and preferences of specific people who are firmly in the history of FOSS are not relevant factors here. The relevant factor is drawing and maintaining a strict definitional line My point is that this strict definition reflects nothing more than the MIT AI Lab hackers' elevation of their freedom (even at the expense of others, as in chapter 5 of _Hackers_) to an ethical absolute. Of course, most of those hackers outgrew that, but Stallman didn't, and he successfully spread the idea that all generally useful technical information, including software, should be freely available. And, if I'm not mistaken, that's where the DFSG came from. Since I didn't spell out part of my logic in my original comment, I will here: given that his nearly-forgotten campaign against passwords was obviously hopelessly naive, we should be open to the possibility that the same holds for the idea that software should be free for everyone to use. > There's been a massive push in recent decades towards permissive licenses Fair point. And I admit that this has made me stop and think about my choice of license for my own primary open-source project, AccessKit [3]. I was quick to permissively license that project from the beginning, before I considered funding. As it turned out, most of my development on that project so far has been funded by Google, which also specifically requested the Apache license (I went with the Apache/MIT dual license common in the Rust world). But in any case, I think a permissive license is actually the best choice for my goal with this project, which is to encourage and help developers to make as many GUI applications as possible accessible to disabled users. So yes, I want frictionless adoption above all else, but I think it's for a good reason. If a massive company used my project without paying me, I think I would consider it a net positive, because at least more applications would be accessible. But then, it's possible that by choosing a permissive license, I'm further poisoning the well, because I'm making more software available to freeloaders who would otherwise be obligated to pay someone (not necessarily me). FWIW, I'm thinking about developing an AccessKit-based module that has more of a niche use case (a screen reader for platforms or embedded devices that don't already have accessibility support), and for that, I might go with a dual copyleft/commercial licensing scheme. [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928956 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928956 [2]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928945 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29928945 [3]: https://github.com/AccessKit/accesskit https://github.com/AccessKit/accesskit

laurencerowe 5y ago

> There's been a massive push in recent decades towards permissive licenses, driven in large part by a combination of companies who find permissive licensing convenient and individual developers who project a certain counter-counterculture "do whatever you want, I don't want to think about licenses". I'm not sure permissive Open Source licensing is counter-cultural. It's just a way for developers to take from and contribute to the software commons as part of their commercial day jobs. It doesn't challenge the status quo any more than the journals in which other disciplines might share and grow expertise on new techniques which are not considered trade secrets. More restrictive Free Software licenses can be counter-cultural since the virality of those licenses can prevent software being 'exploited' by commercial entities. But that counter-cultural label only really applies to communal Free Software. Open-core business models while valid aren't really of the same spirit. The balance between permissive and restrictive Open Source and Free Software licenses in the software commons of an area ultimately ends up reflecting the developer time that each model provides. And whether a particular license is permissive or restrictive will depend on the company. GPL JavaScript libraries are pretty restrictive as using them would likely require you to share your commercial application code under a permissive license. GPL Linux is effectively permissive unless your business model involves selling operating systems.

JoshTriplett 5y ago
I think we're mostly in agreement here. I was suggesting that FOSS itself was a counterculture (compared to proprietary software), and I was loosely describing the resentful "I don't want to think about licenses" (or moreso mocking people who care about licenses) as a conter-counterculture to that. I think that plays directly into the promotion of permissive licensing.