4 ms·

> Docs are written for self-hosters. These are all good signs. Except at the time of writing, netmaker isn't FOSS: https://github.com/gravitl/netmaker/blob/16

> Docs are written for self-hosters. These are all good signs. Except at the time of writing, netmaker isn't FOSS: https://github.com/gravitl/netmaker/blob/16d5b5807/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/gravitl/netmaker/blob/16d5b5807/LICENSE.t...

api 3y ago
Liberal licenses are alive and well for libraries but for finished and polished products expect more of this. People are tired of being free labor for hustlers and billion dollar companies. “Thanks for all the work, we’ll take that and put it behind a paywall and monetize it for you and not give you anything.” People other than the author have a huge advantage when it comes to monetizing: they can focus only on that. The authors have to focus on creating while others can focus only on marketing.
- progbits 3y ago
  NetMaker homepage says "backed by Ycombinator" so I doubt they are free labor. I sympathize to some degree, but true OSS is an important distinction for many and should be highlighted.
- fmajid 3y ago
  I don't have much sympathy for that argument. AGPL (or dual-licensed AGPL + commercial) is the simple countermeasure for freeloaders. Most tech companies won't touch it with a 20-foot pole.
  - j1elo 3y ago
    Didn't seem to be such of a silver bullet for MongoDB, which used AGPL and still were forced to abandon it in favor of an even stronger version made by themselves (the SSPL, which is an AGPL on steroids). I'm not sure if there are more such cases, but clearly with this one, AGPL was not enough. I guess the issue is: if you have freeloaders, who are making all the money you would need to keep the OSS project alive, AGPL doesn't help you in any way. They are free to get the code as-is, run it, and serve their customers. Not sure why everybody suggests AGPL+Commercial as the perfect solution, it doesn't seem to solve anything for that case.
  - freyes 3y ago
    > Most tech companies won't touch it with a 20-foot pole. This!, in my experience lawyers will deny the use of AGPL software, even when there is no risk (from my point of view). Many companies have already a list of blessed licenses, and AGPL is not part of the ones I'm aware of.
    - api 3y ago
      This phenomenon is mostly just GPL-phobia. Microsoft spent billions in the 90s to convince corporate legal that the GPL is "viral" in ways it is not. You could simply rename the license to something other than the letters G-P-L and this would go away.
j1elo 3y ago
I'm surprised they went for the SSPL, though. Its terms are too vague about the distinction between hosting and just using, and also at the time I read this entry in HN about how it might actually be unenforceable anyway: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116
JeremyNT 3y ago
Thanks for pointing this out - a major negative for this project. For now, Nebula is still my choice in this space.
- LeBit 3y ago
  Same here. Nebula might not be wireguard based, but it is open source and very stable. Though, I have to say that if you are using Nebula within a LAN it sometimes takes minutes for two nodes to realize they are within each other's reach. In the mean time, they talk through the lighthouse which can severely affect performance.
rcme 3y ago
Why isn’t SSPL considered FOSS but AGPL is?
- papercrane 3y ago
  The short answer is SSPL has field-of-use restrictions, the AGPL does not.
- afeiszli 3y ago
  SSPL is a bit more restrictive, but politics also have a lot to do with it. "Open Source" is just a term, technically anyone could call their license open source, but most people only consider a license open source if the OSI (a foundation) specifically approves it. Mongo tried and failed to get SSPL approved by OSI: https://blog.tidelift.com/what-i-learned-from-the-server-side-public-license https://blog.tidelift.com/what-i-learned-from-the-server-sid...
  - rcme 3y ago
    Interesting. According to the article, it seems like the biggest complaint was that Mongo was a for-profit company and couldn’t be trusted? I agree that for-profit companies can’t be trusted, but I’m not sure I agree with the statement “that’s not open source because the license was written by a for-profit company”.
    - papercrane 3y ago
      That article is obfuscating why the license was going to be rejected by the OSI. The OSI has as part of their definition of open-source that there can be no field of use discriminators. It had nothing to do with the fact that it was drafted by a commercial company. OSI has approved plenty of licenses drafted by for-profit companies (e.g. Intel, IBM, Microsoft.) https://blog.opensource.org/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-license/ https://blog.opensource.org/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l... https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
      - rcme 3y ago
afeiszli 3y ago
Hi! Netmaker here. At the time of this writing this is true, but we're making some licensing changes this sprint, which I think will make people very happy. We started with SSPL just because it's much easier to go from more restrictive to less restrictive, as opposed to the alternative. However, several months ago we moved all of the client-side code to Apache-2.0, and are about to make the server-side code FOSS-compatible.
- hwillis 3y ago
  That's awesome! Glad it's a priority.
- ignoramous 3y ago
  IANAL. I'm afraid you have it the other way around. It is easier to switch from permissive licenses (MIT / 3BSD) to compatible restrictive license (MPL / xGPL) than vice versa (xGPL to MPL / MIT) without a CLA. Glad you're going Apache, though.
  - afeiszli 3y ago
    We do have a CLA, and put it in place for this very reason. It is more complex legally, but I meant more in terms of the community. Better to make people happy by going less restrictive over time then to start out with Apache and switch to something more restrictive and upset a bunch of people.

api 3y ago

Liberal licenses are alive and well for libraries but for finished and polished products expect more of this. People are tired of being free labor for hustlers and billion dollar companies. “Thanks for all the work, we’ll take that and put it behind a paywall and monetize it for you and not give you anything.” People other than the author have a huge advantage when it comes to monetizing: they can focus only on that. The authors have to focus on creating while others can focus only on marketing.

progbits 3y ago
NetMaker homepage says "backed by Ycombinator" so I doubt they are free labor. I sympathize to some degree, but true OSS is an important distinction for many and should be highlighted.
fmajid 3y ago
I don't have much sympathy for that argument. AGPL (or dual-licensed AGPL + commercial) is the simple countermeasure for freeloaders. Most tech companies won't touch it with a 20-foot pole.
- j1elo 3y ago
  Didn't seem to be such of a silver bullet for MongoDB, which used AGPL and still were forced to abandon it in favor of an even stronger version made by themselves (the SSPL, which is an AGPL on steroids). I'm not sure if there are more such cases, but clearly with this one, AGPL was not enough. I guess the issue is: if you have freeloaders, who are making all the money you would need to keep the OSS project alive, AGPL doesn't help you in any way. They are free to get the code as-is, run it, and serve their customers. Not sure why everybody suggests AGPL+Commercial as the perfect solution, it doesn't seem to solve anything for that case.
- freyes 3y ago
  > Most tech companies won't touch it with a 20-foot pole. This!, in my experience lawyers will deny the use of AGPL software, even when there is no risk (from my point of view). Many companies have already a list of blessed licenses, and AGPL is not part of the ones I'm aware of.
  - api 3y ago
    This phenomenon is mostly just GPL-phobia. Microsoft spent billions in the 90s to convince corporate legal that the GPL is "viral" in ways it is not. You could simply rename the license to something other than the letters G-P-L and this would go away.

j1elo 3y ago

I'm surprised they went for the SSPL, though. Its terms are too vague about the distinction between hosting and just using, and also at the time I read this entry in HN about how it might actually be unenforceable anyway: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18301116

JeremyNT 3y ago

Thanks for pointing this out - a major negative for this project. For now, Nebula is still my choice in this space.

LeBit 3y ago
Same here. Nebula might not be wireguard based, but it is open source and very stable. Though, I have to say that if you are using Nebula within a LAN it sometimes takes minutes for two nodes to realize they are within each other's reach. In the mean time, they talk through the lighthouse which can severely affect performance.

rcme 3y ago

Why isn’t SSPL considered FOSS but AGPL is?

papercrane 3y ago
The short answer is SSPL has field-of-use restrictions, the AGPL does not.
afeiszli 3y ago
SSPL is a bit more restrictive, but politics also have a lot to do with it. "Open Source" is just a term, technically anyone could call their license open source, but most people only consider a license open source if the OSI (a foundation) specifically approves it. Mongo tried and failed to get SSPL approved by OSI: https://blog.tidelift.com/what-i-learned-from-the-server-side-public-license https://blog.tidelift.com/what-i-learned-from-the-server-sid...
- rcme 3y ago
  Interesting. According to the article, it seems like the biggest complaint was that Mongo was a for-profit company and couldn’t be trusted? I agree that for-profit companies can’t be trusted, but I’m not sure I agree with the statement “that’s not open source because the license was written by a for-profit company”.
  - papercrane 3y ago
    That article is obfuscating why the license was going to be rejected by the OSI. The OSI has as part of their definition of open-source that there can be no field of use discriminators. It had nothing to do with the fact that it was drafted by a commercial company. OSI has approved plenty of licenses drafted by for-profit companies (e.g. Intel, IBM, Microsoft.) https://blog.opensource.org/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-license/ https://blog.opensource.org/the-sspl-is-not-an-open-source-l... https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
    - rcme 3y ago

afeiszli 3y ago

Hi! Netmaker here. At the time of this writing this is true, but we're making some licensing changes this sprint, which I think will make people very happy. We started with SSPL just because it's much easier to go from more restrictive to less restrictive, as opposed to the alternative. However, several months ago we moved all of the client-side code to Apache-2.0, and are about to make the server-side code FOSS-compatible.

hwillis 3y ago
That's awesome! Glad it's a priority.
ignoramous 3y ago
IANAL. I'm afraid you have it the other way around. It is easier to switch from permissive licenses (MIT / 3BSD) to compatible restrictive license (MPL / xGPL) than vice versa (xGPL to MPL / MIT) without a CLA. Glad you're going Apache, though.
- afeiszli 3y ago
  We do have a CLA, and put it in place for this very reason. It is more complex legally, but I meant more in terms of the community. Better to make people happy by going less restrictive over time then to start out with Apache and switch to something more restrictive and upset a bunch of people.