3 ms·

I think the BSL license is a good compromise for businesses looking to protect their IP, and after a year release everything under MIT or Apache. As long as the

I think the BSL license is a good compromise for businesses looking to protect their IP, and after a year release everything under MIT or Apache. As long as they keep innovating, the latest and greatest will always come from the code authors themselves with a potential for dual licensing to enterprise to earn some revenue. That being said, I've personally chosen Apache2 for my projects. I feel that the growth and adoption from the community outweigh not having VCs crawling at my door, if you can afford this path. Curious what others have to say about other high profile switches from Mongo, Elastic, Sentry, etc.

kevincox 4y ago
The main missing component is security updates. Usually in this model there is no guarantee that the open-source "tip" is actually supported. Even if it wasn't supported releasing security patches under an open-source license would allow community back porting. Of course security patches are a big driver for businesses so this makes sense from the profit sense. However as an open source project I would be very hesitant to add this as a dependency because now I am forcing my user to enter a contract if they want security. I think this is the problem with non-free licenses in general. It makes it a much harder decision for other projects to build upon. Because now any user is required to become a customer of another business with pricing and licenses that I have no control over and can change at any time.
- detaro 4y ago
  Indeed, and even if a separate group decides to maintain a (potentially diverging) version based on the open-source versions, without a clear commitment from the BSL upstream every security patch puts them at risk of claims of license violations.
hodgesrm 4y ago
BSL is just another form of source code escrow. It's unusable for projects my company works on and uses, for two reasons. We need the freedom to use the software for any purpose. We also need some assurance that others will feel enough ownership to enable a sustainable community of contributors. Apache 2 is overall the best license to achieve that goal, though obviously others do the same. Edit: typo
PeterZaitsev 4y ago
BSL of course is better than Proprietary License which never converts to Open Source but it is not Open Source License.

kevincox 4y ago

The main missing component is security updates. Usually in this model there is no guarantee that the open-source "tip" is actually supported. Even if it wasn't supported releasing security patches under an open-source license would allow community back porting. Of course security patches are a big driver for businesses so this makes sense from the profit sense. However as an open source project I would be very hesitant to add this as a dependency because now I am forcing my user to enter a contract if they want security. I think this is the problem with non-free licenses in general. It makes it a much harder decision for other projects to build upon. Because now any user is required to become a customer of another business with pricing and licenses that I have no control over and can change at any time.

detaro 4y ago
Indeed, and even if a separate group decides to maintain a (potentially diverging) version based on the open-source versions, without a clear commitment from the BSL upstream every security patch puts them at risk of claims of license violations.

hodgesrm 4y ago

BSL is just another form of source code escrow. It's unusable for projects my company works on and uses, for two reasons. We need the freedom to use the software for any purpose. We also need some assurance that others will feel enough ownership to enable a sustainable community of contributors. Apache 2 is overall the best license to achieve that goal, though obviously others do the same. Edit: typo

PeterZaitsev 4y ago

BSL of course is better than Proprietary License which never converts to Open Source but it is not Open Source License.