4 ms·

> 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 remai

by 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.
    - robocat 4y ago
      > Taking an established, OSS project and closing it destroys that community No. If there is a vibrant community of developers, then that community can make the decision to fork. From the OP it seems like there is no community, just enterprise users that do not “give back” open source, which happens. Even without the community, those enterprise users can create a new community of users to keep the current version maintained. A similar situation occurs when a library supplier company goes under - which is one risk you take on whenever you depend on a commercially developed library (whether FLOSS or closed).
  - saagarjha 4y ago
    Your point is valid, but isn’t what I was getting at, because it’s largely equivalent to a maintainer just dividing yo wind down contributions to some software they made. This is something we generally consider to ok, although some exceptions exist.* Here, the project is actually taking part of the community with it, fracturing contributions and the people who work on it. Going back to the car example, it’s like you have a couple of people carpooling and you each take turns buying snacks to share so you’re not hungry during the trip. Now the two people will go in the new car, or their own vehicles, and now you have to buy snacks entirely by yourself, there’s no pooling anymore. This is stretching the analogy a little bit, because you can copy software and not snacks, but a lot of people contribute to open source because, well, if everyone contributes a bit they all benefit from the community pool of code in the future. If I submitted code to this project while it was open source and now to my access to the shared benefits of an open source project is gone, because I have to use the old code pre-relicense, then I’d be kind of upset. *Name squatting, actively attempting to advertise an unmaintained project, other forms of essentially false advertising nonwithstanding
  - vetinari 4y ago
    This is very cynical view. Why would you expect a community to form around product led by a leadership with such an attitude? Changing license mid-flight is an attempt to reap benefits from existing community, but not providing the benefits the old license provided.

by joisig 4y ago

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.
  - robocat 4y ago
    > Taking an established, OSS project and closing it destroys that community No. If there is a vibrant community of developers, then that community can make the decision to fork. From the OP it seems like there is no community, just enterprise users that do not “give back” open source, which happens. Even without the community, those enterprise users can create a new community of users to keep the current version maintained. A similar situation occurs when a library supplier company goes under - which is one risk you take on whenever you depend on a commercially developed library (whether FLOSS or closed).
- saagarjha 4y ago
  Your point is valid, but isn’t what I was getting at, because it’s largely equivalent to a maintainer just dividing yo wind down contributions to some software they made. This is something we generally consider to ok, although some exceptions exist.* Here, the project is actually taking part of the community with it, fracturing contributions and the people who work on it. Going back to the car example, it’s like you have a couple of people carpooling and you each take turns buying snacks to share so you’re not hungry during the trip. Now the two people will go in the new car, or their own vehicles, and now you have to buy snacks entirely by yourself, there’s no pooling anymore. This is stretching the analogy a little bit, because you can copy software and not snacks, but a lot of people contribute to open source because, well, if everyone contributes a bit they all benefit from the community pool of code in the future. If I submitted code to this project while it was open source and now to my access to the shared benefits of an open source project is gone, because I have to use the old code pre-relicense, then I’d be kind of upset. *Name squatting, actively attempting to advertise an unmaintained project, other forms of essentially false advertising nonwithstanding
- vetinari 4y ago
  This is very cynical view. Why would you expect a community to form around product led by a leadership with such an attitude? Changing license mid-flight is an attempt to reap benefits from existing community, but not providing the benefits the old license provided.