4 ms·
This BSL Business Source License is endorsed by neither the Free Software Foundation nor OSI https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.
by sideeffffect 4y ago
This BSL Business Source License is endorsed by neither the Free Software Foundation nor OSI
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html
https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
That's a big red flag.
- spiffytech 4y agoI'll be interested to see where the community lands on this years from now. It's frustrating to see so many databases relicense under licenses that are almost OSS but not quite. Yet it's totally understandable - it's hard to pay database engineers when you give your product away and then AWS neuters your hosting and support business.
- josephcsible 4y agoI just wish more developers could follow Grafana's path and switch to the AGPL when that becomes a problem, instead of switching to fauxpen source licenses.
- romange 4y agoI think its ok that we have innovation at legal front as well. And innovation requires exploration, choosing road not taken...
- josephcsible 4y agoThe innovation should take place within the FOSS space, though.
- true_religion 4y agoWhy? FOSS is, at least initially, a charitable project. You work on a database for months then give it in its entirety away for free to all your potential customers and even your competitors with better established sales teams (e.g. Amazon). They are explicitly not a charity. Isn’t it okay to be a for profit company that sells software with a closed copyrighted source?
- josephcsible 4y agoRed Hat isn't a charity either. They make a nice profit, and all their stuff is FOSS.
- true_religion 4y agoRed Hat makes a Linux distribution. It was not their choice whether to be charitable or not, they are the recipients of the initial charity of the Linux founders and are bound by contract to continuing making their code open as a price for building on open code. If Red Hat could change the license, would they? Maybe. (Not now but you can’t say the leadership won’t make that decision during financial crisis).
- josephcsible 4y agoBut there's more to a Linux distribution than just the kernel, and a lot of the other pieces aren't copyleft, so Red Hat can change the license, but they choose to keep them open source anyway.
- tremon 4y agoNo, it's a collaborative project initially. You work on a tool for months with other developers that each have their own employer, but all benefit from the sum of the work. That there's freeloaders that benefit from the work without having to expend labour is a side-effect, not the primary motivation.
- arinlen 4y ago> I think its ok that we have innovation at legal front as well. And innovation requires exploration, choosing road not taken... Chosing to release software under a non-FLOSS, proprietary license is hardly innovative, and I'm afraid trying to frame it that way sounds like you want to have your FLOSS cake and eat it too.
- WorldMaker 4y agoThe AGPL is not without its own controversies and some would lump that under fauxpen source licenses too.
- josephcsible 4y agoWhat controversies, and who would? The FSF (obviously), the OSI, the DFSG, and Fedora are all okay with it.
- beanjuiceII 4y agoyep it's a big red NO for me for sure