7 ms·

Corporate entitlement about using open source (and demand support for it) is enormous. I would love if licences with usage restrictions were more popular, and t

Corporate entitlement about using open source (and demand support for it) is enormous. I would love if licences with usage restrictions were more popular, and the OSI wouldn't just say "that's not open source!!!". It would prevent these kinds of situations.

amiga386 3y ago
> I would love if licences with usage restrictions were more popular, I would not. Or rather, not if the "usage restrictions" were outwith the varying strengths of share-alike enforcement provided by the LGPL, GPL, AGPL. Freedom for users to run software for any purpose is freedom 0, and Stallman sets out very eloquently why usage restrictions would not help: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... As per the warranty disclaimer, free software is given to you with no strings attached. It is boorish to demand free support and maintenance as well, when you've already been gifted the freedom to make any amendments you see fit. I don't think changing the license would make such boorish people go away.
the8472 3y ago
I think most people don't want to be that anti-corporate. Otherwise they wouldn't use permissive licenses in the first place. And there may be non-license options that are friendlier to open source than corporate. E.g. if someone has a non-trivial issue they must publish a reproducer.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - the8472 3y ago
    But that restriction also makes it incompatible with other licences which means the code can't be used by other FOSS projects. And often people care more about that. It'd be great if we had something like an LAGPL though.
    - Pannoniae 3y ago
      No, it's not incompatible if you don't breach any of the licence terms in the combined product.
      - angus-prune 3y ago
        But the combined product is not in being released in accordance with the GPL, so it is incompatible.
        Pannoniae 3y ago
        Yeah, it's not compatible with the GPL or the AGPL, you are correct. However, it would be compatible with other FOSS licences as long as you abide by the added restrictions.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        So what's stopping you from doing just that? You don't need the OSI to sign off on anything.
        Pannoniae 3y ago
        The fact that many people say that you can't call it "open source" if it doesn't grant the user the four OSI freedoms.... even though they don't have a trademark on the expression "open source".
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        I own and operate a chicken farm. I raise my chickens ethically, and I say so on my website. But I get angry emails from activists saying that it is unethical to farm chickens at all, no matter how I do it. To support their argument, they link to a PETA website saying as much. So I hatch a plan, I lobby PETA to change their espoused principles. Amazingly, PETA acquiesces and endorses my business. What happens next? What happens next is those activists still send me hate mail, and now they also send PETA hate mail as well. The people who previously cited PETA to defend their position aren't swayed by PETA's change of policy. They were never taking marching orders from PETA in the first place. They previously liked PETA because PETA aligned with their values, but PETA no longer aligns with their values so now they've got a beef with me and PETA. Do you see what I'm saying here? Open source / Free Software activists don't take marching orders from the OSI or FSF. We cite those organizations because those organizations align with our beliefs. Should those organizations change, our beliefs would not. The Zeroth software freedom isn't something we fight for because some organization tells us to, it's something we fight for because we believe in it. You can't change this by getting the OSI to change their website.
morelisp 3y ago
You don't need to change the license to the software, only the license to access the bug tracker.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - mrob 3y ago
    The Open Source Definition does not require any specific development methodology. Open Source with a private bug tracker is still Open Source. Open Source was promoted as a pragmatic method to write better software, and public ("bazaar") development was recommended over private ("cathedral") development. But this is more a case of marketing than legal terms. The Open Source Definition was inspired by the Free Software Definition, and in practice is almost identical. Free Software is primarily about ethics, not software quality, so it has nothing to say about development methodologies. The Open Source Definition did not change this.
II2II 3y ago
I'm not sure how that will solve the problem. Chance are the software would still be used in business environments and you would still have people asking for support on behalf of their employer. I have heard stories a plenty of businesses doing that in the 80's, when support was typically offered for free, with pirated software. The only thing that reduced that type of shenanigans were paid support contracts. Your only real recourse is suing for license violations, and relatively few open source developers are going to have the means to do that against a medium business, never mind a major corporation.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  I just find it absurd how you are literally not allowed to restrict who uses your software and for what purpose.
  - ydlr 3y ago
    Once you give it to them, its not your software. It is theirs.
    - Pannoniae 3y ago
      But this is the entire point - I want to publish my source code, but I also don't want to give it away in that way.
  - Plasmoid 3y ago
    What are you talking about? You can restrict your software from being used for anything at all. iTunes is famously prohibited from being in the making of nuclear weapons.
    - Pannoniae 3y ago
      Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I was talking about the fact that if you release your code as open source but want to restrict how it is used, people will brigade you and flame you for not providing the users all the OSI freedoms. OSI doesn't have a trademark on the expression "open source"....
mcpackieh 3y ago
The GNU AGPLv3 makes corporate lawyers seethe so hard, it may as well be a non-commercial license. But it isn't, and it satisfies both the OSI and the FSF. Anyway, it's good for OSI and FSF to take a hardline stance here. If your priorities don't align with theirs, why should they change to satisfy you? Simply use the license you like, even if they don't approve of it. Why is that a problem for you? Why do you need these orgs to stamp their approval on your choice of license, when you obviously don't share their values in the first place?
LexiMax 3y ago
> I would love if licences with usage restrictions were more popular, and the OSI wouldn't just say "that's not open source!!!". I agree with you, but guess who pays the OSI's bills: https://opensource.org/sponsors/ https://opensource.org/sponsors/ For their corporate sponsors, not supporting usage restrictions is a feature, not a bug. There's also a ton of dogma surrounding the open source and free software definitions where you'll get dog-piled for not conforming to these definitions. These definitions are often considered as holy writ and their adherents refuse to entertain if perhaps these definitions might need to be adjusted for the realities of 2023. Even if you try to ignore them and coin your own terminology so as to not to conflict, open source and free software advocates will continue to try and control the narrative by insisting on their own language, which is designed to have negative connotations in their circles.
- Pannoniae 3y ago
  Yeah, you've put it way better than I could ever have, thanks. I just massively dislike how they pretend the OSI has a trademark over the word "open source" (which they don't) and that they presume everyone wants to have their work be freely combinable with others. If you use it, great, if you don't want to because you are afraid of the legal issues, no problem. It's massive entitlement to think that just because you released the source code, anyone should be granted the four freedoms to essentially do whatever with it. (Which includes the SaaS loophole as well....)
  - account42 3y ago
    If you don't want to grant the four basic freedoms, simply don't call your license open source. Stop trying to mooch off of the goodwill around open source software.
- mcpackieh 3y ago
  > but guess who pays the OSI's bills: https://opensource.org/sponsors/ https://opensource.org/sponsors/ For their corporate sponsors, not supporting usage restrictions is a feature, not a bug. Stallman and the FSF are hardly darlings of the corporate world, but they also consider the first and most important software freedom to be: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)." This is something people in this space earnestly believe in, not something they're just being paid by corporations to espouse. If you don't share these values, then that's your prerogative. Simply use another license and ignore people who complain about it; since they don't share your values you shouldn't care what they think. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms

amiga386 3y ago

> I would love if licences with usage restrictions were more popular, I would not. Or rather, not if the "usage restrictions" were outwith the varying strengths of share-alike enforcement provided by the LGPL, GPL, AGPL. Freedom for users to run software for any purpose is freedom 0, and Stallman sets out very eloquently why usage restrictions would not help: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... As per the warranty disclaimer, free software is given to you with no strings attached. It is boorish to demand free support and maintenance as well, when you've already been gifted the freedom to make any amendments you see fit. I don't think changing the license would make such boorish people go away.

the8472 3y ago

I think most people don't want to be that anti-corporate. Otherwise they wouldn't use permissive licenses in the first place. And there may be non-license options that are friendlier to open source than corporate. E.g. if someone has a non-trivial issue they must publish a reproducer.

Pannoniae 3y ago
[flagged]
- the8472 3y ago
  But that restriction also makes it incompatible with other licences which means the code can't be used by other FOSS projects. And often people care more about that. It'd be great if we had something like an LAGPL though.
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    No, it's not incompatible if you don't breach any of the licence terms in the combined product.
    - angus-prune 3y ago
      But the combined product is not in being released in accordance with the GPL, so it is incompatible.
      - Pannoniae 3y ago
        Yeah, it's not compatible with the GPL or the AGPL, you are correct. However, it would be compatible with other FOSS licences as long as you abide by the added restrictions.
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        So what's stopping you from doing just that? You don't need the OSI to sign off on anything.
        Pannoniae 3y ago
        The fact that many people say that you can't call it "open source" if it doesn't grant the user the four OSI freedoms.... even though they don't have a trademark on the expression "open source".
        mcpackieh 3y ago
        I own and operate a chicken farm. I raise my chickens ethically, and I say so on my website. But I get angry emails from activists saying that it is unethical to farm chickens at all, no matter how I do it. To support their argument, they link to a PETA website saying as much. So I hatch a plan, I lobby PETA to change their espoused principles. Amazingly, PETA acquiesces and endorses my business. What happens next? What happens next is those activists still send me hate mail, and now they also send PETA hate mail as well. The people who previously cited PETA to defend their position aren't swayed by PETA's change of policy. They were never taking marching orders from PETA in the first place. They previously liked PETA because PETA aligned with their values, but PETA no longer aligns with their values so now they've got a beef with me and PETA. Do you see what I'm saying here? Open source / Free Software activists don't take marching orders from the OSI or FSF. We cite those organizations because those organizations align with our beliefs. Should those organizations change, our beliefs would not. The Zeroth software freedom isn't something we fight for because some organization tells us to, it's something we fight for because we believe in it. You can't change this by getting the OSI to change their website.

morelisp 3y ago

You don't need to change the license to the software, only the license to access the bug tracker.

Pannoniae 3y ago
[flagged]
- mrob 3y ago
  The Open Source Definition does not require any specific development methodology. Open Source with a private bug tracker is still Open Source. Open Source was promoted as a pragmatic method to write better software, and public ("bazaar") development was recommended over private ("cathedral") development. But this is more a case of marketing than legal terms. The Open Source Definition was inspired by the Free Software Definition, and in practice is almost identical. Free Software is primarily about ethics, not software quality, so it has nothing to say about development methodologies. The Open Source Definition did not change this.

II2II 3y ago

I'm not sure how that will solve the problem. Chance are the software would still be used in business environments and you would still have people asking for support on behalf of their employer. I have heard stories a plenty of businesses doing that in the 80's, when support was typically offered for free, with pirated software. The only thing that reduced that type of shenanigans were paid support contracts. Your only real recourse is suing for license violations, and relatively few open source developers are going to have the means to do that against a medium business, never mind a major corporation.

Pannoniae 3y ago
I just find it absurd how you are literally not allowed to restrict who uses your software and for what purpose.
- ydlr 3y ago
  Once you give it to them, its not your software. It is theirs.
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    But this is the entire point - I want to publish my source code, but I also don't want to give it away in that way.
- Plasmoid 3y ago
  What are you talking about? You can restrict your software from being used for anything at all. iTunes is famously prohibited from being in the making of nuclear weapons.
  - Pannoniae 3y ago
    Sorry, I was a bit unclear. I was talking about the fact that if you release your code as open source but want to restrict how it is used, people will brigade you and flame you for not providing the users all the OSI freedoms. OSI doesn't have a trademark on the expression "open source"....

mcpackieh 3y ago

The GNU AGPLv3 makes corporate lawyers seethe so hard, it may as well be a non-commercial license. But it isn't, and it satisfies both the OSI and the FSF. Anyway, it's good for OSI and FSF to take a hardline stance here. If your priorities don't align with theirs, why should they change to satisfy you? Simply use the license you like, even if they don't approve of it. Why is that a problem for you? Why do you need these orgs to stamp their approval on your choice of license, when you obviously don't share their values in the first place?

LexiMax 3y ago

> I would love if licences with usage restrictions were more popular, and the OSI wouldn't just say "that's not open source!!!". I agree with you, but guess who pays the OSI's bills: https://opensource.org/sponsors/ https://opensource.org/sponsors/ For their corporate sponsors, not supporting usage restrictions is a feature, not a bug. There's also a ton of dogma surrounding the open source and free software definitions where you'll get dog-piled for not conforming to these definitions. These definitions are often considered as holy writ and their adherents refuse to entertain if perhaps these definitions might need to be adjusted for the realities of 2023. Even if you try to ignore them and coin your own terminology so as to not to conflict, open source and free software advocates will continue to try and control the narrative by insisting on their own language, which is designed to have negative connotations in their circles.

Pannoniae 3y ago
Yeah, you've put it way better than I could ever have, thanks. I just massively dislike how they pretend the OSI has a trademark over the word "open source" (which they don't) and that they presume everyone wants to have their work be freely combinable with others. If you use it, great, if you don't want to because you are afraid of the legal issues, no problem. It's massive entitlement to think that just because you released the source code, anyone should be granted the four freedoms to essentially do whatever with it. (Which includes the SaaS loophole as well....)
- account42 3y ago
  If you don't want to grant the four basic freedoms, simply don't call your license open source. Stop trying to mooch off of the goodwill around open source software.
mcpackieh 3y ago
> but guess who pays the OSI's bills: https://opensource.org/sponsors/ https://opensource.org/sponsors/ For their corporate sponsors, not supporting usage restrictions is a feature, not a bug. Stallman and the FSF are hardly darlings of the corporate world, but they also consider the first and most important software freedom to be: "The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0)." This is something people in this space earnestly believe in, not something they're just being paid by corporations to espouse. If you don't share these values, then that's your prerogative. Simply use another license and ignore people who complain about it; since they don't share your values you shouldn't care what they think. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms