5 ms·

> This is purely a way for HashiCorp to ensure they are the only ones who can commercialize these formerly open source projects. Which is fine. But just go clos

> This is purely a way for HashiCorp to ensure they are the only ones who can commercialize these formerly open source projects. Which is fine. But just go closed source, then, and own that, instead of trying to have it both ways. Pragmatically I would rather bsl than closed source and I am more likely to use a product that is bsl, with reasonable transfer time and license, than a 100% closed source product.

Rapzid 3y ago
I wish I could give you more upvotes. I'd also much rather have "open source" with commercialization restrictions than closed source. It's still in most people's best interest to contribute to these projects if they were before, or would have before. Many businesses(and this is where most of the contributions get funded from, let's be real) rely on these projects and have no intention of selling them or competing with HashiCorp services.
- ramses0 3y ago
  "Source Available" please.
JoshTriplett 3y ago
I'd rather have proprietary than "almost open source". Both aren't useful, but only one attempts to damage the common understanding of what "Open Source" means.
- davorak 3y ago
  I do not call anything under BSL open source. I would prefer if companies when presenting the BSL talk about their schedule to open source, the schedule being when the Change License takes effect, at least if the Change License is an open source one.
  - notpushkin 3y ago
    Under BSL, change license is required to be open source. I haven't seen any precedents yet, but MariaDB owns the BSL trademark, so they can enforce that.
- LexiMax 3y ago
  Why? To me, the BSL comes off as a good faith attempt at a compromise between the letter of "Open Source" and the realities of not wanting to give free labor to your competition. The actual text of the BSL mandates - under threat of infringing on BSL's trademark - that in at most four years the code will be available under a GPL 2.0 compatible license. In practice, the BSL license is usually a traditional open source one with caveats. The BSL FAQ also states and restates many, MANY times that it is not an open source license according to the OSI's definition. I can't help but feel like the outcry over this is just a tempest in a teapot. I have a hunch that "Open Source" will do just fine without us having to carry water for it. After all, the list of OSI's corporate sponsors is quite illustrious: https://opensource.org/sponsors/ https://opensource.org/sponsors/
  - selestify 3y ago
    I can’t believe you’re the only one in the thread who’s mentioned that it’ll revert to traditional open source licensing in four years. That changes everything, imo. It’s so much better than software staying closed source forever, possibly because the company went out of business.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  What? Why? I don't get this at all. Like, the direct pragmatic benefits of being able to read and modify source code are just enormous. The benefits of maintaining this pure definition of open source are amorphous at best, in comparison.
  - JoshTriplett 3y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) If we don't have a common definition, everyone has their own, and there's no common understanding of what rights you have for a piece of Open Source software. That commons has far far more value than any one or ten pieces of software.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      > That commons has far far more value than any one or ten pieces of software. I don't think so. I suppose I can understand why people who feel strongly that the OSI definition is perfect (or at least extremely good) are very intent on protecting it, whereas I see it as flawed and am thus less concerned about this fracturing. So I understand your perspective upon reflection, though I honestly have a lot of trouble imagining holding it myself. A lot of people in this thread have been saying stuff like "just go full proprietary, that's better", and it sounds ridiculous to me every time I read a variant of it
      - aragilar 3y ago
        What would you change then? Practically only the 4th criteria would be one I'd change (but presumably it's there for a reason): "Integrity of the author's source code: The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software." As for the commons, you are aware that the OSD comes from the Debian Free Software Guidelines (it's the same thing but for some minor working changes)? That is the commons that's been talked about, and it's deployed on far more systems than any BSL code is. So moving to completely propriety (note that this doesn't mean it's not Source Available) means that everyone is upfront about what the state is, whereas something like the BSL is leaning into the halo effect under the justification that the code will be open source at some future point.
- CrimsonRain 3y ago
  You do realize that it is people like you who are turning FOSS in to OSS, then claiming BSL (and non-OSI Stuff) are not OSS and blaming others for damaging understanding?
  - davidgerard 3y ago
    they literally aren't. These are jargon terms with precise meanings.
- rowanseymour 3y ago
  > Both aren't useful, but only one attempts to damage the common understanding of what "Open Source" means We have a messaging flow building platform which is BSL. Anyone who wants to run their own instance is welcome to and people do and thus find it useful. The idea that the world would be better off if we made it closed source and prevented that... is just nonsense.
  - cthalupa 3y ago
    > Anyone who wants to run their own instance is welcome to and people do and thus find it useful. The idea that the world would be better off if we made it closed source and prevented that... is just nonsense. How does making something closed source automatically mean someone can't run their own instance of it, even for free? Closed source does not mean 'You can only download this if you pay us', just as open source does not mean 'You can download this for free'
    - rowanseymour 3y ago
      Closed source doesn't preclude developers distributing it for free, BSL isn't claiming to be Open Source.. but it's silly to insist that that software that is *publically available* to anyone to download and run.. describe itself as "closed source".
      - pxc 3y ago
        Enclosed-within-glass software
        rowanseymour 3y ago
        But it's not just visible... you can submit a PR if you like, and people do.
        pxc 3y ago
        That's true. I think the taxonomy I'd really endorse is that the dichotomy is between free software and proprietary software, and within each there are a range of restrictions/guarantees (depending on your PoV: user or developer) that licenses might have. The broad distinction we care about within free software is copyleft vs. permissive, and one important one in proprietary software is source-available vs. closed-source. Then besides all of that there are the non-licensing realities of how development is actually carried out, whether it is collaborative with outsiders, and with which outsiders... The terms get harder because open/closed suggests straightforward opposites that partition all the options. But I'd characterize licenses like BSL and the Fair Source License as 'generous proprietary licenses with public source availability', but not open-source. I have a feeling that the term 'open-source' is more likely to erode than 'free software', in the coming decades. We'll see, I guess.
- pxc 3y ago
  Source available is proprietary. Decades ago, it was not unusual for proprietary Unix software to be distributed in source form, and installed by first compiling it on the target system. Merely distributing source is not and has never been the key difference between open-source and proprietary software.
thayne 3y ago
I mostly agree. But I also think it is a jerk move to change the license like this after accepting many external contributions, even if it is legal due to CLAs. At least they admit it isn't open source in the FAQ and are calling it the community version instead of the open source version.
- gus_massa 3y ago
  And that's why I disñike CLA.
JeremyNT 3y ago
Yeah, it's not binary. BSL is worse than open source, but it sucks way less than fully closed products. I'll at least consider using it. My big gripe with the BSL is when companies switch from a proper open source license to the BSL, sometimes they try to sell it as a positive development, which is BS. The HashiCorp announcement is better than some in this regard, worse than others. Claiming it's the "evolution" of open source is weird spin, of course. I also feel like any company switching from open source to BSL puts a stench of death / desperation on them, and it makes me worry for their future. If they have to make OSS -> BSL switch today, what's the next user hostile change going to be? Will they even survive?

Rapzid 3y ago

I wish I could give you more upvotes. I'd also much rather have "open source" with commercialization restrictions than closed source. It's still in most people's best interest to contribute to these projects if they were before, or would have before. Many businesses(and this is where most of the contributions get funded from, let's be real) rely on these projects and have no intention of selling them or competing with HashiCorp services.

ramses0 3y ago
"Source Available" please.

JoshTriplett 3y ago

I'd rather have proprietary than "almost open source". Both aren't useful, but only one attempts to damage the common understanding of what "Open Source" means.

davorak 3y ago
I do not call anything under BSL open source. I would prefer if companies when presenting the BSL talk about their schedule to open source, the schedule being when the Change License takes effect, at least if the Change License is an open source one.
- notpushkin 3y ago
  Under BSL, change license is required to be open source. I haven't seen any precedents yet, but MariaDB owns the BSL trademark, so they can enforce that.
LexiMax 3y ago
Why? To me, the BSL comes off as a good faith attempt at a compromise between the letter of "Open Source" and the realities of not wanting to give free labor to your competition. The actual text of the BSL mandates - under threat of infringing on BSL's trademark - that in at most four years the code will be available under a GPL 2.0 compatible license. In practice, the BSL license is usually a traditional open source one with caveats. The BSL FAQ also states and restates many, MANY times that it is not an open source license according to the OSI's definition. I can't help but feel like the outcry over this is just a tempest in a teapot. I have a hunch that "Open Source" will do just fine without us having to carry water for it. After all, the list of OSI's corporate sponsors is quite illustrious: https://opensource.org/sponsors/ https://opensource.org/sponsors/
- selestify 3y ago
  I can’t believe you’re the only one in the thread who’s mentioned that it’ll revert to traditional open source licensing in four years. That changes everything, imo. It’s so much better than software staying closed source forever, possibly because the company went out of business.
sanderjd 3y ago
What? Why? I don't get this at all. Like, the direct pragmatic benefits of being able to read and modify source code are just enormous. The benefits of maintaining this pure definition of open source are amorphous at best, in comparison.
- JoshTriplett 3y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) If we don't have a common definition, everyone has their own, and there's no common understanding of what rights you have for a piece of Open Source software. That commons has far far more value than any one or ten pieces of software.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    > That commons has far far more value than any one or ten pieces of software. I don't think so. I suppose I can understand why people who feel strongly that the OSI definition is perfect (or at least extremely good) are very intent on protecting it, whereas I see it as flawed and am thus less concerned about this fracturing. So I understand your perspective upon reflection, though I honestly have a lot of trouble imagining holding it myself. A lot of people in this thread have been saying stuff like "just go full proprietary, that's better", and it sounds ridiculous to me every time I read a variant of it
    - aragilar 3y ago
      What would you change then? Practically only the 4th criteria would be one I'd change (but presumably it's there for a reason): "Integrity of the author's source code: The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software." As for the commons, you are aware that the OSD comes from the Debian Free Software Guidelines (it's the same thing but for some minor working changes)? That is the commons that's been talked about, and it's deployed on far more systems than any BSL code is. So moving to completely propriety (note that this doesn't mean it's not Source Available) means that everyone is upfront about what the state is, whereas something like the BSL is leaning into the halo effect under the justification that the code will be open source at some future point.
CrimsonRain 3y ago
You do realize that it is people like you who are turning FOSS in to OSS, then claiming BSL (and non-OSI Stuff) are not OSS and blaming others for damaging understanding?
- davidgerard 3y ago
  they literally aren't. These are jargon terms with precise meanings.
rowanseymour 3y ago
> Both aren't useful, but only one attempts to damage the common understanding of what "Open Source" means We have a messaging flow building platform which is BSL. Anyone who wants to run their own instance is welcome to and people do and thus find it useful. The idea that the world would be better off if we made it closed source and prevented that... is just nonsense.
- cthalupa 3y ago
  > Anyone who wants to run their own instance is welcome to and people do and thus find it useful. The idea that the world would be better off if we made it closed source and prevented that... is just nonsense. How does making something closed source automatically mean someone can't run their own instance of it, even for free? Closed source does not mean 'You can only download this if you pay us', just as open source does not mean 'You can download this for free'
  - rowanseymour 3y ago
    Closed source doesn't preclude developers distributing it for free, BSL isn't claiming to be Open Source.. but it's silly to insist that that software that is *publically available* to anyone to download and run.. describe itself as "closed source".
    - pxc 3y ago
      Enclosed-within-glass software
      - rowanseymour 3y ago
        But it's not just visible... you can submit a PR if you like, and people do.
        pxc 3y ago
        That's true. I think the taxonomy I'd really endorse is that the dichotomy is between free software and proprietary software, and within each there are a range of restrictions/guarantees (depending on your PoV: user or developer) that licenses might have. The broad distinction we care about within free software is copyleft vs. permissive, and one important one in proprietary software is source-available vs. closed-source. Then besides all of that there are the non-licensing realities of how development is actually carried out, whether it is collaborative with outsiders, and with which outsiders... The terms get harder because open/closed suggests straightforward opposites that partition all the options. But I'd characterize licenses like BSL and the Fair Source License as 'generous proprietary licenses with public source availability', but not open-source. I have a feeling that the term 'open-source' is more likely to erode than 'free software', in the coming decades. We'll see, I guess.
pxc 3y ago
Source available is proprietary. Decades ago, it was not unusual for proprietary Unix software to be distributed in source form, and installed by first compiling it on the target system. Merely distributing source is not and has never been the key difference between open-source and proprietary software.

thayne 3y ago

I mostly agree. But I also think it is a jerk move to change the license like this after accepting many external contributions, even if it is legal due to CLAs. At least they admit it isn't open source in the FAQ and are calling it the community version instead of the open source version.

gus_massa 3y ago
And that's why I disñike CLA.

JeremyNT 3y ago

Yeah, it's not binary. BSL is worse than open source, but it sucks way less than fully closed products. I'll at least consider using it. My big gripe with the BSL is when companies switch from a proper open source license to the BSL, sometimes they try to sell it as a positive development, which is BS. The HashiCorp announcement is better than some in this regard, worse than others. Claiming it's the "evolution" of open source is weird spin, of course. I also feel like any company switching from open source to BSL puts a stench of death / desperation on them, and it makes me worry for their future. If they have to make OSS -> BSL switch today, what's the next user hostile change going to be? Will they even survive?