3 ms·

> Those who take the deal aren’t “locked in” by some dark legal magic. No, they're locked in because this application has a likely proprietary data format, and

> Those who take the deal aren’t “locked in” by some dark legal magic. No, they're locked in because this application has a likely proprietary data format, and conversion means you lose content... If you're even allow to export. Proprietary programs act as data roach motels: your data checks in, and it dont check out. > The customer gets source and permission to hack it. This is way more normal in business-to-business software deals than hackers tend to think. Almost all proprietary software won't do this. And I've dealt with a lot of proprietary software. At best, I've seen an agreement that if the company died, they would get escrow sourcecode. And that was 1 company.

kube-system 5y ago
If you’re some random dude who shows up off the street, proprietary software vendors probably won’t share source. But for large contracts, it does happen. Even MS has been doing this for over 20 years. This type of proprietary licensing is called “shared source” licensing. And for more customizable B2B software, shared source is very common. (Or, basically, anything delivered in an interpreted language)
- marcodiego 5y ago
  If you’re some random dude who shows up off the street, FLOSS devs will share source.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    I never said otherwise, and neither did the author. Although now that you mention it, that’s not always true… which is exactly why the AGPL was written.
    - monocasa 5y ago
      I mean, the consensus is that using FOSS to provide SaaS and not providing source isn't really FOSS. It doesn't award the four freedoms, and is basically a hack to make FOSS back into proprietary software rather than some gotcha. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
      - kube-system 5y ago
        If the literal text a the software license is, verbatim, a FOSS license, it’s a bit of a no-true-Scotsman to say that it doesn’t count. Licenses are just documents. I think it’s silly that some people insist that FOSS licenses are perfectly infallible and proprietary licenses are always fatally flawed. They all have pros and cons, people misuse them, and none of them are perfect. If there was one that was perfect, everyone would use it. But everyone has different needs and concerns. Pick the license that does what you want to do.
        monocasa 5y ago
        No, it's that there a definition of free software based in the four freedoms that the licences only approximate. That's why GPL has an 'or later' clause, to patch fix issues when people find out ways to remove the four freedoms while complying with the letter of the license. So I'm specifically not making the argument that "FOSS licenses are perfectly infallible", only that everything proprietary licenses do, FOSS licenses and support contracts do better from the user's perspective.
        kube-system 5y ago
        Software licenses are a legal document. Those legal documents are defined by the terms within them. One may argue that it isn't "in the spirit of of what RMS intended", but legally speaking, RMS's opinions have no relevance to a contract he isn't a party to. If MIT/Apache/BSD/GPL, etc don't qualify as licenses that protect "the four freedoms" then the OSI and FSF need to update their list of approved licenses.
        monocasa 5y ago
        GPL they do update. That's the point of the "or later" part. BSD/MIT/Apache is compatible with the four freedoms, but don't do all of the work to enforce them. That's what the FSF means by approved; these licenses are approved for being incorporated into GPL code.

kube-system 5y ago

If you’re some random dude who shows up off the street, proprietary software vendors probably won’t share source. But for large contracts, it does happen. Even MS has been doing this for over 20 years. This type of proprietary licensing is called “shared source” licensing. And for more customizable B2B software, shared source is very common. (Or, basically, anything delivered in an interpreted language)

marcodiego 5y ago
If you’re some random dude who shows up off the street, FLOSS devs will share source.
- kube-system 5y ago
  I never said otherwise, and neither did the author. Although now that you mention it, that’s not always true… which is exactly why the AGPL was written.
  - monocasa 5y ago
    I mean, the consensus is that using FOSS to provide SaaS and not providing source isn't really FOSS. It doesn't award the four freedoms, and is basically a hack to make FOSS back into proprietary software rather than some gotcha. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-serve.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really-s...
    - kube-system 5y ago
      If the literal text a the software license is, verbatim, a FOSS license, it’s a bit of a no-true-Scotsman to say that it doesn’t count. Licenses are just documents. I think it’s silly that some people insist that FOSS licenses are perfectly infallible and proprietary licenses are always fatally flawed. They all have pros and cons, people misuse them, and none of them are perfect. If there was one that was perfect, everyone would use it. But everyone has different needs and concerns. Pick the license that does what you want to do.
      - monocasa 5y ago
        No, it's that there a definition of free software based in the four freedoms that the licences only approximate. That's why GPL has an 'or later' clause, to patch fix issues when people find out ways to remove the four freedoms while complying with the letter of the license. So I'm specifically not making the argument that "FOSS licenses are perfectly infallible", only that everything proprietary licenses do, FOSS licenses and support contracts do better from the user's perspective.
        kube-system 5y ago
        Software licenses are a legal document. Those legal documents are defined by the terms within them. One may argue that it isn't "in the spirit of of what RMS intended", but legally speaking, RMS's opinions have no relevance to a contract he isn't a party to. If MIT/Apache/BSD/GPL, etc don't qualify as licenses that protect "the four freedoms" then the OSI and FSF need to update their list of approved licenses.
        monocasa 5y ago
        GPL they do update. That's the point of the "or later" part. BSD/MIT/Apache is compatible with the four freedoms, but don't do all of the work to enforce them. That's what the FSF means by approved; these licenses are approved for being incorporated into GPL code.