4 ms·

Business source license = fakely open source

lostcolony 4y ago
While still meeting most of the OSI criteria for being open source. It basically says "you can use the features covered by this license for most uses, except creating your own SaaS offering of this product", plus some of the typical boilerplate about ensuring the license travels with the code. It's basically a license that was created in response to how Amazon has been operating, co-opting open source technologies (whose business models focused on creating SaaS offerings of their open source tech) and creating their own managed services, directly competing with the creators (Redis even called this out a few years ago when they changed their license, see https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/redis-labs-changes-its-open-source-license-again/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/redis-labs-changes-its-ope...). They also indicate that at some point the license will change to Apache 2 ( https://github.com/redpanda-data/redpanda/tree/dev/licenses https://github.com/redpanda-data/redpanda/tree/dev/licenses ); it's BSL right now likely to give them enough legal protection to keep competitors who'd operate Redpanda as a SaaS away, while they build up the enterprise (paid) features (which has a separate, far more wordy, license). I'd imagine they'd look to make the switch when they feel they have enough value and customers of the enterprise features. I don't work on open source, or anything licensed by BSI, and from such an outsider perspective you sound...very dogmatic.
- slimsag 4y ago
  "The BSL is not an Open Source license and we do not claim it to be one." "The BSL does not meet the Open Source Definition (OSD) maintained by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). OSD does not allow limitations on specific kinds of such, such as production use." > Q: Can I use BSL products to develop software that will be licensed under different licenses? > > A: Yes, as long as you don’t include any of the BSL code in the code for the software that’s being developed, and you do not make production use of the BSL code. From the creators of the BSL license[0]: https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-adopting/ https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-adopting/ BSL is not open source, period. It's just another startup source-available license parading "I want to be open source on GitHub.. but gosh please don't use my code without paying me!!" Companies should stop instructing Heather to create these licenses IMO, and just split their code into open source and enterprise-only parts. It's easier, more honest, and ends this whole debate. It's the GitLab/Sourcegraph model too.
  - lostcolony 4y ago
    With one caveat - it explicitly calls out additional use grants. It's "please don't use this in a commercial product without paying me -or talking to me-".
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > It's just another startup source-available license parading "I want to be open source on GitHub.. but gosh please don't use my code without paying me!!" Isn't it "please don't create a competing service to us"? Considering how many tech startups struggled with that very same problem, it's a completely understandable concern. Some, like Sentry, have a time limited license - BSL for 2 years and then it switches to Apache/MIT. Sounds like a pretty good compromise. > Companies should stop instructing Heather to create these licenses IMO, and just split their code into open source and enterprise-only parts. It's easier, more honest, and ends this whole debate. It's the GitLab/Sourcegraph model too. It's not easier for them, because the codebase is split, they have to consider which features go where, potentially piss off people by moving features to the enterprise only parts (e.g. InfluxData). And that doesn't stop an Amazon selling your open core version with some custom additions.
traverseda 4y ago
As an open source zealot... BSL seems like a pretty good compromise with sin, and does a great deal with project our free software freedoms.
oq_computer 4y ago
These type of interpretations were actually one of the concerns within the Free Software movement when the Open Source terminology started to appear: "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... Open Source terminology, how it was coined, was exactly to not imply that it was 'Free' in any sense, so things like BSL actually practice Open Source in the original sense.
- js4ever 4y ago
  Burner account created 8 days ago? So I guess you work for redpanda? For real HN users please read other comments below about why BSL is bad
  - oq_computer 4y ago
    Did not mean that BSL was good, just that when you mean that something is 'real open source' you are most likely referring to the ideals of the Free Software movement in terms of what that movement meant by something being 'free'. Open Source mostly means that the source code is available and collaborative development is happening in public. From the article I linked for example, your stance is more akin to the second one: - A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss. - The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.

While still meeting most of the OSI criteria for being open source. It basically says "you can use the features covered by this license for most uses, except creating your own SaaS offering of this product", plus some of the typical boilerplate about ensuring the license travels with the code. It's basically a license that was created in response to how Amazon has been operating, co-opting open source technologies (whose business models focused on creating SaaS offerings of their open source tech) and creating their own managed services, directly competing with the creators (Redis even called this out a few years ago when they changed their license, see https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/redis-labs-changes-its-open-source-license-again/ https://techcrunch.com/2019/02/21/redis-labs-changes-its-ope...). They also indicate that at some point the license will change to Apache 2 ( https://github.com/redpanda-data/redpanda/tree/dev/licenses https://github.com/redpanda-data/redpanda/tree/dev/licenses ); it's BSL right now likely to give them enough legal protection to keep competitors who'd operate Redpanda as a SaaS away, while they build up the enterprise (paid) features (which has a separate, far more wordy, license). I'd imagine they'd look to make the switch when they feel they have enough value and customers of the enterprise features. I don't work on open source, or anything licensed by BSI, and from such an outsider perspective you sound...very dogmatic.

slimsag 4y ago
"The BSL is not an Open Source license and we do not claim it to be one." "The BSL does not meet the Open Source Definition (OSD) maintained by the Open Source Initiative (OSI). OSD does not allow limitations on specific kinds of such, such as production use." > Q: Can I use BSL products to develop software that will be licensed under different licenses? > > A: Yes, as long as you don’t include any of the BSL code in the code for the software that’s being developed, and you do not make production use of the BSL code. From the creators of the BSL license[0]: https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-adopting/ https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-adopting/ BSL is not open source, period. It's just another startup source-available license parading "I want to be open source on GitHub.. but gosh please don't use my code without paying me!!" Companies should stop instructing Heather to create these licenses IMO, and just split their code into open source and enterprise-only parts. It's easier, more honest, and ends this whole debate. It's the GitLab/Sourcegraph model too.
- lostcolony 4y ago
  With one caveat - it explicitly calls out additional use grants. It's "please don't use this in a commercial product without paying me -or talking to me-".
- sofixa 4y ago
  > It's just another startup source-available license parading "I want to be open source on GitHub.. but gosh please don't use my code without paying me!!" Isn't it "please don't create a competing service to us"? Considering how many tech startups struggled with that very same problem, it's a completely understandable concern. Some, like Sentry, have a time limited license - BSL for 2 years and then it switches to Apache/MIT. Sounds like a pretty good compromise. > Companies should stop instructing Heather to create these licenses IMO, and just split their code into open source and enterprise-only parts. It's easier, more honest, and ends this whole debate. It's the GitLab/Sourcegraph model too. It's not easier for them, because the codebase is split, they have to consider which features go where, potentially piss off people by moving features to the enterprise only parts (e.g. InfluxData). And that doesn't stop an Amazon selling your open core version with some custom additions.

traverseda 4y ago

As an open source zealot... BSL seems like a pretty good compromise with sin, and does a great deal with project our free software freedoms.

oq_computer 4y ago

These type of interpretations were actually one of the concerns within the Free Software movement when the Open Source terminology started to appear: "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... Open Source terminology, how it was coined, was exactly to not imply that it was 'Free' in any sense, so things like BSL actually practice Open Source in the original sense.

js4ever 4y ago
Burner account created 8 days ago? So I guess you work for redpanda? For real HN users please read other comments below about why BSL is bad
- oq_computer 4y ago
  Did not mean that BSL was good, just that when you mean that something is 'real open source' you are most likely referring to the ideals of the Free Software movement in terms of what that movement meant by something being 'free'. Open Source mostly means that the source code is available and collaborative development is happening in public. From the article I linked for example, your stance is more akin to the second one: - A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss. - The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.