5 ms·

> Sadly, open source is prone to the infamous “Tragedy of the commons”, which shows that we are prone to act in our self-interest, Like, when somebody releases

> Sadly, open source is prone to the infamous “Tragedy of the commons”, which shows that we are prone to act in our self-interest, Like, when somebody releases something open source, then notice that they can actually make money out of it and they change the license at the last minute. Oh the hypocrisy. Seriously if you're bothered by people making money out of your product, keep it closed source, nothing wrong with it. On the contrary a plague of the latest years is this pressure that everything should be open source: it doesn't need to. If you're not comfortable with it, keep it closed source. But if you decide to open source something, keep your promises, no matter what.

MrBuddyCasino 4y ago
> But if you decide to open source something, keep your promises, no matter what. I don't understand the sentiment of "once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly? More of their free time & money to hold up something you call a "promise" but is just their choice of license made many years ago? They are being reasonable about it, you still get the source, you can still use it for free on a revenue < $25M. Companies making significant amounts of money now have to pay for it, instead of freeloading. Its fine to spend your nights and weekends on passions projects when your young, its also fine to demand money for shouldering much of its development when said project grows large many years later and you have obligations towards your family. Its called being an adult.
- capableweb 4y ago
  > I don't understand the sentiment of "once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly? If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor. > Its fine to spend your nights and weekends on passions projects when your young [...] Its called being an adult With all due respect, fuck you. Equaling "open source" to "young people can waste their time" and "software needs to earn money" to being an adult is a really shitty opinion to put out there. Me (40+ years old) and many others do open source because we want the world to be about more than just money. Just because you cannot understand that nor want the same thing, doesn't mean that we're wrong and you're right.
  - maxboone 4y ago
    How is that morally different from your contribution being used by non-contributing companies to turn profit. The existing codebase stays OSS, and can be forked. The work they put in starting now, is going to be proprietary for three years. It feels like a stupid change anyways, as companies can just keep using the old OSS version.
  - doikor 4y ago
    > If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor. Whatever you contributed is still available as OSS (the previous version with the old license). Just fork the project and compete with them if you think you can do it better. Lightbend seems to think they can't keep developing OSS Akka in a way that would make them money and thus the change.
  - tkfu 4y ago
    > If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor. No, you contributed under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when you contributed _and the CLA they made you sign before they accepted your PR_, which said that they're allowed to change the license later on if they feel like it. If you think that the company changing the license for future versions is a middle finger, you shouldn't be contributing to projects that make you sign CLAs.
    - capableweb 4y ago
      Sorry, I was responding directly to the claim ""once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly?" without thinking about Lightbend in particular. If you sign a CLA saying they can change the license later on if they so wishes, they are of course free to do so.
  - avalys 4y ago
    You contributed under the Apache “LICENSE”, which allows them to do exactly what they did. This is hardly a subtle detail, it’s one of the major characteristics of the Apache license. If you did not like this, you could have chosen to only contribute to projects whose licenses do not permit this, e.g. those licensed under GPL. Were you unaware of this?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
joisig 4y ago
> But if you decide to open source something, keep your promises, no matter what. Presumably all older versions of the software that were Apache licensed remain so. They are switching to BSL (closed, but source available and each revision switches to Apache licensed 3 years later) going forward. I don't see how this is worse than keeping everything closed source from the start, which is your suggestion? Shouldn't we be thankful for all the work they've done so far for free, and if somebody doesn't like the new licensing model, then they can fork it from the last Apache-licensed version and keep going from there?
- saagarjha 4y ago
  No, because it’s a bait and switch. They attracted a bunch of people to use and contribute to their software because it’s open source. Almost all of them do not have the capacity to maintain their own individual fork of the software. It’s like if you decided to carpool with someone and halfway through they parked the car at the side of the road and switch into another car, leaving you with the original one. I mean, hey, they’re giving you a car to finish your trip! But what if you don’t know how to drive? What if you didn’t plan on spending your next twelve hours focusing on the road? People usually don’t expect their open source software to suddenly go closed source out from under them, just like they don’t expect their carpool buddy to bail on them halfway through the trip.
  - hiram112 4y ago
    Anybody using a current version or older under an Apache license can continue to do so, as far as I can tell. Nobody using a free version of any software should expect some benelovent 3rd party to continue fixing bugs and making improvements for free, even if you enjoyed that privilege before.
    - growse 4y ago
      True, but this misses the point about why a lot of people bother to contribute to OSS in the first place. A thriving OSS project is more than just the software, it's a community. People contribute features and bug fixes upstream so that everyone else can benefit, because in return they also get the benefit of others contributions. It's a body of collective endeavour. There's a social contract. Taking an established, OSS project and closing it destroys that community. Sure, it's legal, and everyone can continue to use the version they're currently on, but something dies, and trust is broken.
doikor 4y ago
> change the license at the last minute. This is after 13 years of support not "last minute".
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
avalys 4y ago
What promise are they not keeping? The existing versions are still available as open-source. The Apache license does not require them to continue to release subsequent versions under the same license. The GPL does, but by not releasing under the GPL in the first place, they were clearly not making that promise.
KingOfCoders 4y ago
"Like, when somebody releases something open source," ... to get traction and own the market (and sometimes, don't know here, get free work) as a business strategy, not for the greater good.
- pas 4y ago
  what's the greater good anyway? back to nomadic live off the land no money no capitalism? can a business strategy align with some version of the greater good? how much alignment is needed?
  - KingOfCoders 4y ago
    No alignment is needed. The referral to "Tragedy of the commons" [1] makes it sound as the primary goal of open sourcing was the common good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
hrpnk 4y ago
There is also a challenge in compensating the former OSS contributors who made the community around the product a success...

MrBuddyCasino 4y ago

> But if you decide to open source something, keep your promises, no matter what. I don't understand the sentiment of "once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly? More of their free time & money to hold up something you call a "promise" but is just their choice of license made many years ago? They are being reasonable about it, you still get the source, you can still use it for free on a revenue < $25M. Companies making significant amounts of money now have to pay for it, instead of freeloading. Its fine to spend your nights and weekends on passions projects when your young, its also fine to demand money for shouldering much of its development when said project grows large many years later and you have obligations towards your family. Its called being an adult.

capableweb 4y ago
> I don't understand the sentiment of "once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly? If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor. > Its fine to spend your nights and weekends on passions projects when your young [...] Its called being an adult With all due respect, fuck you. Equaling "open source" to "young people can waste their time" and "software needs to earn money" to being an adult is a really shitty opinion to put out there. Me (40+ years old) and many others do open source because we want the world to be about more than just money. Just because you cannot understand that nor want the same thing, doesn't mean that we're wrong and you're right.
- maxboone 4y ago
  How is that morally different from your contribution being used by non-contributing companies to turn profit. The existing codebase stays OSS, and can be forked. The work they put in starting now, is going to be proprietary for three years. It feels like a stupid change anyways, as companies can just keep using the old OSS version.
- doikor 4y ago
  > If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor. Whatever you contributed is still available as OSS (the previous version with the old license). Just fork the project and compete with them if you think you can do it better. Lightbend seems to think they can't keep developing OSS Akka in a way that would make them money and thus the change.
- tkfu 4y ago
  > If I contributed to the project, I did so under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when I contributed. If I didn't like OSS, I wouldn't have contributed to a OSS project. Them changing the license is a middle-finger to me as a contributor. No, you contributed under the premise of the LICENSE that was active when you contributed _and the CLA they made you sign before they accepted your PR_, which said that they're allowed to change the license later on if they feel like it. If you think that the company changing the license for future versions is a middle finger, you shouldn't be contributing to projects that make you sign CLAs.
  - capableweb 4y ago
    Sorry, I was responding directly to the claim ""once something is OSS, it has to be so forever". They owe you what exactly?" without thinking about Lightbend in particular. If you sign a CLA saying they can change the license later on if they so wishes, they are of course free to do so.
- avalys 4y ago
  You contributed under the Apache “LICENSE”, which allows them to do exactly what they did. This is hardly a subtle detail, it’s one of the major characteristics of the Apache license. If you did not like this, you could have chosen to only contribute to projects whose licenses do not permit this, e.g. those licensed under GPL. Were you unaware of this?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

joisig 4y ago

> But if you decide to open source something, keep your promises, no matter what. Presumably all older versions of the software that were Apache licensed remain so. They are switching to BSL (closed, but source available and each revision switches to Apache licensed 3 years later) going forward. I don't see how this is worse than keeping everything closed source from the start, which is your suggestion? Shouldn't we be thankful for all the work they've done so far for free, and if somebody doesn't like the new licensing model, then they can fork it from the last Apache-licensed version and keep going from there?

saagarjha 4y ago
No, because it’s a bait and switch. They attracted a bunch of people to use and contribute to their software because it’s open source. Almost all of them do not have the capacity to maintain their own individual fork of the software. It’s like if you decided to carpool with someone and halfway through they parked the car at the side of the road and switch into another car, leaving you with the original one. I mean, hey, they’re giving you a car to finish your trip! But what if you don’t know how to drive? What if you didn’t plan on spending your next twelve hours focusing on the road? People usually don’t expect their open source software to suddenly go closed source out from under them, just like they don’t expect their carpool buddy to bail on them halfway through the trip.
- hiram112 4y ago
  Anybody using a current version or older under an Apache license can continue to do so, as far as I can tell. Nobody using a free version of any software should expect some benelovent 3rd party to continue fixing bugs and making improvements for free, even if you enjoyed that privilege before.
  - growse 4y ago
    True, but this misses the point about why a lot of people bother to contribute to OSS in the first place. A thriving OSS project is more than just the software, it's a community. People contribute features and bug fixes upstream so that everyone else can benefit, because in return they also get the benefit of others contributions. It's a body of collective endeavour. There's a social contract. Taking an established, OSS project and closing it destroys that community. Sure, it's legal, and everyone can continue to use the version they're currently on, but something dies, and trust is broken.

doikor 4y ago

> change the license at the last minute. This is after 13 years of support not "last minute".

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

avalys 4y ago

What promise are they not keeping? The existing versions are still available as open-source. The Apache license does not require them to continue to release subsequent versions under the same license. The GPL does, but by not releasing under the GPL in the first place, they were clearly not making that promise.

KingOfCoders 4y ago

"Like, when somebody releases something open source," ... to get traction and own the market (and sometimes, don't know here, get free work) as a business strategy, not for the greater good.

pas 4y ago
what's the greater good anyway? back to nomadic live off the land no money no capitalism? can a business strategy align with some version of the greater good? how much alignment is needed?
- KingOfCoders 4y ago
  No alignment is needed. The referral to "Tragedy of the commons" [1] makes it sound as the primary goal of open sourcing was the common good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

hrpnk 4y ago

There is also a challenge in compensating the former OSS contributors who made the community around the product a success...