6 ms·

> Ideology is great until people need to eat. That’s what revenue is for That sounds like what the GP comment is saying. If someone said "turns out open sourc

> Ideology is great until people need to eat. That’s what revenue is for That sounds like what the GP comment is saying. If someone said "turns out open source doesn't work for our business model" it's hard to argue with. If instead they talk about "evolving open source models" and whatnot, it feels like they want the best of both worlds. It's been happening a lot recently that companies pretend they are "open sourcing" something for the PR but really use a much more restrictive license.

toomuchtodo 3y ago
I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means out of survival. Source available is the new open source, and what young technologists will grow up grinding on. You’ll have folks complain about it during the transition (as happens with any Overton window sort of event), but they’ll move on eventually and a new crop of tech industry will grow up with this as the new normal. Change is inevitable, broadly speaking.
- 094459 3y ago
  Yup this is how I see things evolving too. It’s a long game though and I suspect there will be a few twists yet to come.
- version_five 3y ago
  I agree except I think it's our of short term greed plus arrogance rather than survival. Maybe in some cases that's not true, but when companies like Meta are championing pretend open source, it's not existential for them, it's trying to push for a world where they have more control. Like I said, I don't have a problem with closed source business models, it's the deliberate conflation that's troubling, especially when it's leveraged to get community contributions. On the other hand, if popular software becomes faux-pen source (I read that somewhere recently) and community members stop contributing, it's a loss too because it means we all become takers on whatever company's terms. Your almost certainly right about the window shifting, I'm going to keep complaining anyway.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    I encourage you to continue to complain. Sometimes it’s the only way the rest of us have signal we might be wrong.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  > I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means out of survival. I don't think this is happening at all. Open source means the same thing it's always meant. Some people are just retreating from open source. Which is fine, they should be writing Free Software anyway if they want the world to have it, or use proprietary licenses if they don't. Otherwise very wealthy people will live on your back.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I agree. But there are an awful lot of younger devs who really do seem to confuse "open source" with "source available". It's worth educating people about this.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      So, I don't think this is a generational thing. I think most people of all ages and generations have mostly just not thought about this. But the reason more people are thinking about it now is that the distribution model has changed on a way that has highlighted an existential weakness with this model.
      - JohnFen 3y ago
        I lack data, so I cannot say anything broadly. But in the devs that I know, this is 100% a generational thing. It may be different in different circles.
        sanderjd 3y ago
        :shrug: your mileage may vary.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - School-Cotton 3y ago
    “Free software” and “open source” mean the same thing.
- seneca 3y ago
  This is what these companies want you to believe, that it's a fait accompli and you just have to accept it. That's not actually reality, and giving up words and communities to people who want to corrupt them is not the right reaction.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  > I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means Only if we let it, and stop shouting about it and finding alternatives every time a company does this. This isn't a new thing; companies have been trying to play "almost open source" games for decades, and they'll continue playing those games as long as it either works or doesn't have sufficiently large penalties for trying. (Much as companies will continue violating copyleft licenses as long as they either get away with it or the penalties for trying are simply an expected part of the risk.) The best possible response to a company doing this is that someone forks the code, starts or expands a competitor, and the original company's revenue drops massively as a deterrent.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    > The best possible response to a company doing this is that someone forks the code, starts or expands a competitor, and the original company's revenue drops massively as a deterrent. Example of the last time this worked?
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      I don't know what the impact was on their revenue, but pretty much anything Oracle has ever touched.
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        But still wildly profitable! https://investor.oracle.com/investor-news/news-details/2023/Oracle-Announces-Fiscal-2023-Fourth-Quarter-and-Fiscal-Full-Year-Financial-Results/default.aspx https://investor.oracle.com/investor-news/news-details/2023/...
    - riffraff 3y ago
      Jenkins/Hudson? Oracle decided to make Hudson commercial, it was forked and Jenkins is still around but Hudson is dead.
      - 3y ago
- riffraff 3y ago
  The window can't move, as there is an official version of what "open source" means, the Open Source Definition, which does not restrict you from reselling stuff. We've had "source available" for a long time, which means something else. I don't disagree that people may still use SA software more as time goes by, but I would argue that when possible people will prefer open source controlled by entities that keep it such.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    This is not how language works. The phrase "open source" will mean what people think it means. An organization with a lot of credibility and mindshare can affect that meaningfully by maintaining and explaining the official definition from their perspective, but they can never be guaranteed success in convincing people that their definition is what those words will mean forever.
  - cjaybo 3y ago
    “The window can’t move” I’d kill for your confidence
- davidgerard 3y ago
  > I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means This has been the case since the 2000s, as companies want the branding without the openness. This is extremely well worn by now. I argue that companies who want it both ways are continuing to throw up chaff. But we know this chaff extremely well. None of this discussion is new. "open core" has always been a euphemism for "proprietary."
  - pxc 3y ago
    > "open core" has always been a euphemism for "proprietary." Yes. And in some ways, source available licensing is a nicer model for proprietary software than open core. At least with the former you can actually see all of the code to inspect how it works when something is broken. Bleh. Every business wants to build on software freedom but they don't really want to see others freely build on their own software.
- ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
  > I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means perhaps according to Hashicorp's marketing team, otherwise I haven't seen any evidence this is the case

toomuchtodo 3y ago

I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means out of survival. Source available is the new open source, and what young technologists will grow up grinding on. You’ll have folks complain about it during the transition (as happens with any Overton window sort of event), but they’ll move on eventually and a new crop of tech industry will grow up with this as the new normal. Change is inevitable, broadly speaking.

094459 3y ago
Yup this is how I see things evolving too. It’s a long game though and I suspect there will be a few twists yet to come.
version_five 3y ago
I agree except I think it's our of short term greed plus arrogance rather than survival. Maybe in some cases that's not true, but when companies like Meta are championing pretend open source, it's not existential for them, it's trying to push for a world where they have more control. Like I said, I don't have a problem with closed source business models, it's the deliberate conflation that's troubling, especially when it's leveraged to get community contributions. On the other hand, if popular software becomes faux-pen source (I read that somewhere recently) and community members stop contributing, it's a loss too because it means we all become takers on whatever company's terms. Your almost certainly right about the window shifting, I'm going to keep complaining anyway.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  I encourage you to continue to complain. Sometimes it’s the only way the rest of us have signal we might be wrong.
pessimizer 3y ago
> I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means out of survival. I don't think this is happening at all. Open source means the same thing it's always meant. Some people are just retreating from open source. Which is fine, they should be writing Free Software anyway if they want the world to have it, or use proprietary licenses if they don't. Otherwise very wealthy people will live on your back.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I agree. But there are an awful lot of younger devs who really do seem to confuse "open source" with "source available". It's worth educating people about this.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    So, I don't think this is a generational thing. I think most people of all ages and generations have mostly just not thought about this. But the reason more people are thinking about it now is that the distribution model has changed on a way that has highlighted an existential weakness with this model.
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      I lack data, so I cannot say anything broadly. But in the devs that I know, this is 100% a generational thing. It may be different in different circles.
      - sanderjd 3y ago
        :shrug: your mileage may vary.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- School-Cotton 3y ago
  “Free software” and “open source” mean the same thing.
seneca 3y ago
This is what these companies want you to believe, that it's a fait accompli and you just have to accept it. That's not actually reality, and giving up words and communities to people who want to corrupt them is not the right reaction.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
> I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means Only if we let it, and stop shouting about it and finding alternatives every time a company does this. This isn't a new thing; companies have been trying to play "almost open source" games for decades, and they'll continue playing those games as long as it either works or doesn't have sufficiently large penalties for trying. (Much as companies will continue violating copyleft licenses as long as they either get away with it or the penalties for trying are simply an expected part of the risk.) The best possible response to a company doing this is that someone forks the code, starts or expands a competitor, and the original company's revenue drops massively as a deterrent.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  > The best possible response to a company doing this is that someone forks the code, starts or expands a competitor, and the original company's revenue drops massively as a deterrent. Example of the last time this worked?
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    I don't know what the impact was on their revenue, but pretty much anything Oracle has ever touched.
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      But still wildly profitable! https://investor.oracle.com/investor-news/news-details/2023/Oracle-Announces-Fiscal-2023-Fourth-Quarter-and-Fiscal-Full-Year-Financial-Results/default.aspx https://investor.oracle.com/investor-news/news-details/2023/...
  - riffraff 3y ago
    Jenkins/Hudson? Oracle decided to make Hudson commercial, it was forked and Jenkins is still around but Hudson is dead.
    - 3y ago
riffraff 3y ago
The window can't move, as there is an official version of what "open source" means, the Open Source Definition, which does not restrict you from reselling stuff. We've had "source available" for a long time, which means something else. I don't disagree that people may still use SA software more as time goes by, but I would argue that when possible people will prefer open source controlled by entities that keep it such.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  This is not how language works. The phrase "open source" will mean what people think it means. An organization with a lot of credibility and mindshare can affect that meaningfully by maintaining and explaining the official definition from their perspective, but they can never be guaranteed success in convincing people that their definition is what those words will mean forever.
- cjaybo 3y ago
  “The window can’t move” I’d kill for your confidence
davidgerard 3y ago
> I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means This has been the case since the 2000s, as companies want the branding without the openness. This is extremely well worn by now. I argue that companies who want it both ways are continuing to throw up chaff. But we know this chaff extremely well. None of this discussion is new. "open core" has always been a euphemism for "proprietary."
- pxc 3y ago
  > "open core" has always been a euphemism for "proprietary." Yes. And in some ways, source available licensing is a nicer model for proprietary software than open core. At least with the former you can actually see all of the code to inspect how it works when something is broken. Bleh. Every business wants to build on software freedom but they don't really want to see others freely build on their own software.
ImPostingOnHN 3y ago
> I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means perhaps according to Hashicorp's marketing team, otherwise I haven't seen any evidence this is the case