4 ms·
Time have changed and it is well possible there is a need and room for source available licenses. Open Source is established term which offers specific freedom
by PeterZaitsev 4y ago
Time have changed and it is well possible there is a need and room for source available licenses.
Open Source is established term which offers specific freedoms which brings specific benefits (and challenges) to businesses.
While many Venture funded companies might want you to believe they are being unfairly taken advantage by the clouds it is not the full story.
Elastic for example relies on A LOT of code contributed by community, which were contributing because they could use end result under Open Source License.
Elastic changing the license changed relations here to you contribute to create the product BUT you do not get all the rights to use it any more.
In Elastic case in particular large number of cloud solutions were build which embed their solution (arguably same as Elastic embedds Lucene) who could not use Elastic after license change.
- indrora 4y agoWe've had Source-Available licenses for years (MS-PL for instance, as well as many various ones from Sun/Oracle, etc.) There's basically been a resounding "Meh" about them and the people who work on software that adopts them generally move to an open fork or the project perishes (see also the fate of Solaris, Illumos, and Oracle.)
- orra 4y agoQuite. Proprietary source available projects are 'meh'. In the past few years, it seems several notable company-backed projects have switched from the Apache licence, to some proprietary licence. I'd much prefer if instead they tried switching to a strong copyleft licence. (Granted, 'delayed open source' is far better than 'never open source'.)