4 ms·

> The first phase is one in which a given project is released into the world with a legitimate, OSI approved software license. It competes in the market with ot

> The first phase is one in which a given project is released into the world with a legitimate, OSI approved software license. It competes in the market with other, similar projects and it succeeds or fails on its merits, or more likely, the hundred other ancillary factors that are, in the aggregate, more determinative than its merits. I think this part doesn't go far enough -- intelligent investors are pouring in money during this phase, and accelerating growth of projects earlier and earlier. This enables slightly backed projects to out-compete others, market more heavily and discourages authors of competing OSS projects. I haven't seen the "switch" happen so much personally (generally a CLA was a good enough indicator) but I want to point out that this also happens without the involvement of investors. Sometimes F/OSS developers realize how much value they're putting out without receiving adequate compensation and decide to monetize their software, as is their right. It should be expected that the field couldn't live on goodwill alone -- there just aren't enough Stallmans out there. The previous era may have been unsustainable. I say this as someone who tries to make profit from open source software that I did not create. It is healthy for developers to recognize the value they are producing and withhold it if they so choose. It doesn't make sense to begrudge someone for making awesome software that they expect me to pay for -- if I care that much then I can try and generate the value they've generated, or pay for the value they've generated. That said, I still think the future of F/OSS is AGPL[0], not SSPL/BSL/etc. Forcing improvements to be contributed back seems to scare companies that want to exclusively use the product selfishly. Many projects are creating value and going for fully F/OSS licenses anyway, because of a belief in the value of community (whether cynically or not). Those projects end up winning because leveraging a sea of contributors almost always beats tens/hundreds/thousands of closed source devs in the general case, with good guidance. [0]: https://vadosware.io/post/the-future-of-free-and-open-source-is-agpl/ https://vadosware.io/post/the-future-of-free-and-open-source...

yarg 4y ago
I think that the AGPL would've been a better solution for elastic search, but in some ways I don't think it goes far enough. Look, for example, at google doing an end-run about the GPL by using a license that restricts forking rights on Android. I also want the license to provide an interoperability clause - if it's OSS I should be able to build and deploy a fork.
tsimionescu 4y ago
> That said, I still think the future of F/OSS is AGPL[0], not SSPL/BSL/etc. Forcing improvements to be contributed back seems to scare companies that want to exclusively use the product selfishly. And yet, according to Mongo and ElasticSearch, the AGPL doesn't help them actually sell their software in the only way they think is profitable - as a SaaS platform - since it is not creating the type of moat they were hoping for, where they would be the only ones able to offer it as a managed service. AWS was eating their lunch with their own product despite the AGPL, which led to their new license.
- hardwaresofton 4y ago
  > And yet, according to Mongo and ElasticSearch, the AGPL doesn't help them actually sell their software in the only way they think is profitable - as a SaaS platform - since it is not creating the type of moat they were hoping for, where they would be the only ones able to offer it as a managed service. AWS was eating their lunch with their own product despite the AGPL, which led to their new license. You're right -- you're discussing the future of "proprietary software" there -- not the future of F/OSS. Why I say that the future of F/OSS is AGPL is because increasingly smaller creators who know the value of their work are building software with an eye to profitability down the road (or at least avoiding exploitation). This is also why I say that the AGPL is misunderstood -- it does not stop people from running a competing service, it stops them from improving your software (usually for their competing service) and not contributing the changes back. For now, it does serve to discourage most corporations though I think that will wear away over time. Still, AGPL is juuuust at the edge of F/OSS, that's where the frontier will likely be -- the step before BSL/SSPL/Elastic and similar licenses. Libraries are a completely different matter though!

yarg 4y ago

I think that the AGPL would've been a better solution for elastic search, but in some ways I don't think it goes far enough. Look, for example, at google doing an end-run about the GPL by using a license that restricts forking rights on Android. I also want the license to provide an interoperability clause - if it's OSS I should be able to build and deploy a fork.

tsimionescu 4y ago

> That said, I still think the future of F/OSS is AGPL[0], not SSPL/BSL/etc. Forcing improvements to be contributed back seems to scare companies that want to exclusively use the product selfishly. And yet, according to Mongo and ElasticSearch, the AGPL doesn't help them actually sell their software in the only way they think is profitable - as a SaaS platform - since it is not creating the type of moat they were hoping for, where they would be the only ones able to offer it as a managed service. AWS was eating their lunch with their own product despite the AGPL, which led to their new license.

hardwaresofton 4y ago
> And yet, according to Mongo and ElasticSearch, the AGPL doesn't help them actually sell their software in the only way they think is profitable - as a SaaS platform - since it is not creating the type of moat they were hoping for, where they would be the only ones able to offer it as a managed service. AWS was eating their lunch with their own product despite the AGPL, which led to their new license. You're right -- you're discussing the future of "proprietary software" there -- not the future of F/OSS. Why I say that the future of F/OSS is AGPL is because increasingly smaller creators who know the value of their work are building software with an eye to profitability down the road (or at least avoiding exploitation). This is also why I say that the AGPL is misunderstood -- it does not stop people from running a competing service, it stops them from improving your software (usually for their competing service) and not contributing the changes back. For now, it does serve to discourage most corporations though I think that will wear away over time. Still, AGPL is juuuust at the edge of F/OSS, that's where the frontier will likely be -- the step before BSL/SSPL/Elastic and similar licenses. Libraries are a completely different matter though!