4 ms·

Author here. The difference is that FOSS is not a business model. It is far closer to infrastructure, which is usually supported by other means than business m

by di4na 4y ago

Author here. The difference is that FOSS is not a business model. It is far closer to infrastructure, which is usually supported by other means than business models. Things like community structures for common goods (regularly called government but not always). There is a different problem here, which I have chosen to not talk about here, but that is the problem of funding profitable software products. We simply... do not do that. We do not have the tools for that. But that is a different rant.

shadowgovt 4y ago
Agreed. What I'm thinking of specifically is the leftpad attack vector, where a trusted actor suddenly went malicious and broke the software many people were lying upon who didn't realize they were relying upon it (and weren't really in a position to be aware of the issues the author had encountered). If that happens too much, corporations re-evaluate rush and costs and start developing things in isolation and in-house. But I expect leftpad will be a rare event.
- di4na 4y ago
  I would note that the trusted actor did not went malicious. He did exactly what he was entitled to. If we follow the rules, the people that went malicious are all the trusted users and package repository that broke his intent. He was totally in the limits of his rights and the social contract of the licencing for FOSS. The fact we present these maintainers as "going malicious" is exactly what i am ranting against in this post.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    If those are the rules, then the risk is too high for corporations to trust strangers, they shall have to stop using FOSS, the ecosystem collapses (because nobody can build on an untrustable system), and the FOSS experiment fails (in the sense we're back in the bad old days of closed software and while people can develop with FOSS, no same user would trust it for use). If my company has to be responsible for every line of code, we may as well own them. I'd argue that he very much did break the social contract. Not the letter of the actual contract, but it's generally assumed FOSS developers aren't in it to screw consumers of their offerings actively. That's the social contract that's the lifeblood of the movement, and if it breaks in the general case, the movement dies. (There's a lot of things people can do that they're perfectly entitled to that would destroy ecosystems because they shatter expectations. Linus could sneak a very clever backdoor into Linux [hypothetically, perhaps not without collusion with multiple actors and a lot of prep work], and he wouldn't break the license but he would severely injure the project's reputation).
    - bombolo 4y ago
      > If my company has to be responsible for every line of code, we may as well own them. Good luck with that… your company has the skills to reimplement node? > but it's generally assumed FOSS developers aren't in it to screw consumers of their offerings actively It's generally assumed they are in it to get screwed actively… but often that isn't the case. > Linus could sneak a very clever backdoor into Linux You are aware of a difference between writing a malware and deleting a project you own right?
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        > You are aware of a difference between writing a malware and deleting a project you own right? You are quite correct; the npm ecosystem may be a special cade since it has been built on a huge amount of trust-assumption, and the real issue there was that trust model, not FOSS in general. Still, in that ecosystem, unpublishing a module unilaterally that so many systems relied upon was, at besst, negligent (morally not legally), showing a disregard for the concerns of those outside the fight with npm operators. In that context, the unpublish was more malicious than an adherence to the old "user beware" rule. Indeed, it would be hard for Linus to unpublish Linux, given the distributed nature of its hosting; unpublishing leftpad looks more like taking advantage of a mis-design in npm's package model to screw over thousands of third-parties.
        sharpneli 4y ago
        The negligent part is relying on npm. If you want reliability then pay for it. Corporations crying about morality is just a smokescreen for them to avoid paying.
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        Most users of npm aren't corporations. They are individual developers or small operations taking advantage of a very clever ecosystem for distributed package management. The leftpad stunt hurt everyone in that ecosystem. It was dropping a stink bomb at a party because the host had offended him, but everyone in the room got to suffer the consequences.
Rochus 4y ago
> The difference is that FOSS is not a business model FOSS can be part of a business model, but only if there are contracting parties who agree on the mutual obligations. If someone simply develops open source software and this is used by arbitrary people, essential prerequisites are missing for a contract to come into being. Instead, there are no obligations to the developer.
D13Fd 4y ago
"FOSS is infrastructure" and "FOSS maintainers are not suppliers" seem pretty at odds. It can't be both "infrastructure" and akin to a couch you dump in the trash (as in the example in your comment below).
- di4na 4y ago
  the road in front of your door are not a business model ;)
- raisin_churn 4y ago
  FOSS as infrastructure doesn't mean every piece of FOSS is. And infrastructure can be incidental. While we're using analogies tortured beyond all meaning, a goat path in the forest is infrastructure if I ride my bicycle on it to get somewhere, but the goat herder was just herding their goats. If you want to rely on something (code, forest path, whatever), you should probably take steps to ensure the longevity and security of that thing, especially if you depend on it to make money. If I really need my goat/bicycle path, I could do path maintenance on it or try to get the government to do it, but complaining that I'm late for work because the goat herder didn't clear a fallen tree that their goats can jump over but I can't bike around is both foolish and obnoxious.
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    I'm more concerned about the goat herder intentionally dropping a tree on the path because he's having a bad day and wants it to be your problem too. Perhaps it's a distinction without a difference. But if it happens a lot, you'd stop using that path.
cortesoft 4y ago
I am curious… what percentage of FOSS work for the most critical systems is done by people working for free verse people on a company payroll? I feel like most big FOSS projects have corporate sponsors.
- quanticle 4y ago
  Most big FOSS projects do have corporate sponsors, but what about their dependencies? And the dependencies of the dependencies? Eventually you end up with a situation like what you have with OpenSSL or NTP, where an obscure but important component is owned by someone who has a day job and can't properly look after it.
- di4na 4y ago
  Nearly none for the really critical components. Even the one with sponsors do not make that much. Typical example. Last year was the first time the curl project could pay for their website hosting vs the author paying it from his own pocket. Curl.

by di4na 4y ago

shadowgovt 4y ago

Agreed. What I'm thinking of specifically is the leftpad attack vector, where a trusted actor suddenly went malicious and broke the software many people were lying upon who didn't realize they were relying upon it (and weren't really in a position to be aware of the issues the author had encountered). If that happens too much, corporations re-evaluate rush and costs and start developing things in isolation and in-house. But I expect leftpad will be a rare event.

di4na 4y ago
I would note that the trusted actor did not went malicious. He did exactly what he was entitled to. If we follow the rules, the people that went malicious are all the trusted users and package repository that broke his intent. He was totally in the limits of his rights and the social contract of the licencing for FOSS. The fact we present these maintainers as "going malicious" is exactly what i am ranting against in this post.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  If those are the rules, then the risk is too high for corporations to trust strangers, they shall have to stop using FOSS, the ecosystem collapses (because nobody can build on an untrustable system), and the FOSS experiment fails (in the sense we're back in the bad old days of closed software and while people can develop with FOSS, no same user would trust it for use). If my company has to be responsible for every line of code, we may as well own them. I'd argue that he very much did break the social contract. Not the letter of the actual contract, but it's generally assumed FOSS developers aren't in it to screw consumers of their offerings actively. That's the social contract that's the lifeblood of the movement, and if it breaks in the general case, the movement dies. (There's a lot of things people can do that they're perfectly entitled to that would destroy ecosystems because they shatter expectations. Linus could sneak a very clever backdoor into Linux [hypothetically, perhaps not without collusion with multiple actors and a lot of prep work], and he wouldn't break the license but he would severely injure the project's reputation).
  - bombolo 4y ago
    > If my company has to be responsible for every line of code, we may as well own them. Good luck with that… your company has the skills to reimplement node? > but it's generally assumed FOSS developers aren't in it to screw consumers of their offerings actively It's generally assumed they are in it to get screwed actively… but often that isn't the case. > Linus could sneak a very clever backdoor into Linux You are aware of a difference between writing a malware and deleting a project you own right?
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      > You are aware of a difference between writing a malware and deleting a project you own right? You are quite correct; the npm ecosystem may be a special cade since it has been built on a huge amount of trust-assumption, and the real issue there was that trust model, not FOSS in general. Still, in that ecosystem, unpublishing a module unilaterally that so many systems relied upon was, at besst, negligent (morally not legally), showing a disregard for the concerns of those outside the fight with npm operators. In that context, the unpublish was more malicious than an adherence to the old "user beware" rule. Indeed, it would be hard for Linus to unpublish Linux, given the distributed nature of its hosting; unpublishing leftpad looks more like taking advantage of a mis-design in npm's package model to screw over thousands of third-parties.
      - sharpneli 4y ago
        The negligent part is relying on npm. If you want reliability then pay for it. Corporations crying about morality is just a smokescreen for them to avoid paying.
        shadowgovt 4y ago
        Most users of npm aren't corporations. They are individual developers or small operations taking advantage of a very clever ecosystem for distributed package management. The leftpad stunt hurt everyone in that ecosystem. It was dropping a stink bomb at a party because the host had offended him, but everyone in the room got to suffer the consequences.

Rochus 4y ago

> The difference is that FOSS is not a business model FOSS can be part of a business model, but only if there are contracting parties who agree on the mutual obligations. If someone simply develops open source software and this is used by arbitrary people, essential prerequisites are missing for a contract to come into being. Instead, there are no obligations to the developer.

D13Fd 4y ago

"FOSS is infrastructure" and "FOSS maintainers are not suppliers" seem pretty at odds. It can't be both "infrastructure" and akin to a couch you dump in the trash (as in the example in your comment below).

di4na 4y ago
the road in front of your door are not a business model ;)
raisin_churn 4y ago
FOSS as infrastructure doesn't mean every piece of FOSS is. And infrastructure can be incidental. While we're using analogies tortured beyond all meaning, a goat path in the forest is infrastructure if I ride my bicycle on it to get somewhere, but the goat herder was just herding their goats. If you want to rely on something (code, forest path, whatever), you should probably take steps to ensure the longevity and security of that thing, especially if you depend on it to make money. If I really need my goat/bicycle path, I could do path maintenance on it or try to get the government to do it, but complaining that I'm late for work because the goat herder didn't clear a fallen tree that their goats can jump over but I can't bike around is both foolish and obnoxious.
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  I'm more concerned about the goat herder intentionally dropping a tree on the path because he's having a bad day and wants it to be your problem too. Perhaps it's a distinction without a difference. But if it happens a lot, you'd stop using that path.

cortesoft 4y ago

I am curious… what percentage of FOSS work for the most critical systems is done by people working for free verse people on a company payroll? I feel like most big FOSS projects have corporate sponsors.

quanticle 4y ago
Most big FOSS projects do have corporate sponsors, but what about their dependencies? And the dependencies of the dependencies? Eventually you end up with a situation like what you have with OpenSSL or NTP, where an obscure but important component is owned by someone who has a day job and can't properly look after it.
di4na 4y ago
Nearly none for the really critical components. Even the one with sponsors do not make that much. Typical example. Last year was the first time the curl project could pay for their website hosting vs the author paying it from his own pocket. Curl.