4 ms·

> Firstly, the source code will replace its existing Apache 2.0 license with the BSL 1.1 for future versions. > Our commitment to open-source ideals remains un

> Firstly, the source code will replace its existing Apache 2.0 license with the BSL 1.1 for future versions. > Our commitment to open-source ideals remains unshaken. Except for the fact that you are no longer using an open source license. So not so much committed to it as abandoning it.

notpushkin 3y ago
Except with BSL it will still be available as an open source software at some point in the future. This is certainly better than moving to a non-free-and-will-never-be kind of license. However, the way they've also changed “community edition” builds to forbid commercial usage is kinda fucked up.
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Sure, someday then-obsolete versions will slowly become FOSS, but they aren't for a long time.
  - pas 3y ago
    countless instances of 4 year old software are running in critical roles. if it's so good, then a community can take on the burden of backporting fixes and/or watching for CVEs for 4 years. it's not a long time. it's inconvenient, for sure.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      They can't backport fixes or look at the newer code for help because that newer code isn't open source yet. It's true that a community that really wanted to could start implementing their own bug fixes, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
mdaniel 3y ago
> Our commitment to jumping on the "screw you" licensing train means we can't even be bothered to use the SPX licensing identifier for BuSL correctly And, to save others the click, they're using the "4 year cliff" version
- evanelias 3y ago
  > we can't even be bothered to use the SPX licensing identifier for BuSL correctly Not taking a side on this, but just for historical context: the business source license was originally created by MariaDB, who referred to it as "BSL" and continue to do so [1]. So in the database world, calling it "BSL" is not especially unusual. If I understand correctly, SPDX already assigned BSL as the short-code for the Boost Software License, so they assigned BuSL to the Business Source License. Although the Boost Software License has been around since 2003, aside from Boost using it (obviously) it doesn't seem to be a popular choice among other projects. So adopters of the Business Source License then have to choose between agreeing with the license's creators vs agreeing with SPDX. [1] https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/ https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/
cookiengineer 3y ago
The reason why more and more projects have to do that, is pretty much AWS. Most open source projects had managed services as an income stream for development, and AWS destroyed that while not giving back a single cent. So yeah, the real dragon here is Amazon in my opinion. The projects don't have a choice. It's either BSL/AGPL or dead project. In the world of enterprise, nobody is gonna introduce a new hosting provider if they already have all the ISO audits for AWS or Azure.
- beanjuiceII 3y ago
  this aws scapegoat keeps getting worse with no real merit behind it
- josephcsible 3y ago
  > It's either BSL/AGPL or dead project. AGPL is an infinitely better choice than BSL. Nobody would have been upset had they switched to that instead.
  - wmf 3y ago
    I may be in a minority of one, but I consider it disingenuous for companies to use GPL/AGPL to drive people towards commercial licenses. BUSL is at least honest about what's going on.
    - josephcsible 3y ago
      How is it disingenuous? With GPL/AGPL it's actually FOSS. With BUSL it's not. If anything is disingenuous, it's the latter.
      - wmf 3y ago
        The result is the same so it's misleading that one is technically Open Source™ and the other is not.
        3y ago
tomcam 3y ago
What is your best suggestion to keep them in business then?
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
  Two options: * Stay open source, switch to AGPL so AWS/Google won't use it * Stop being open source, but just say that's what you're doing instead of this dishonest "we <3 open source (just kidding we're not actually doing pen source)"
  - kapilvt 3y ago
    last I checked neither of those would touch GPLv3 either.

notpushkin 3y ago

Except with BSL it will still be available as an open source software at some point in the future. This is certainly better than moving to a non-free-and-will-never-be kind of license. However, the way they've also changed “community edition” builds to forbid commercial usage is kinda fucked up.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Sure, someday then-obsolete versions will slowly become FOSS, but they aren't for a long time.
- pas 3y ago
  countless instances of 4 year old software are running in critical roles. if it's so good, then a community can take on the burden of backporting fixes and/or watching for CVEs for 4 years. it's not a long time. it's inconvenient, for sure.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
    They can't backport fixes or look at the newer code for help because that newer code isn't open source yet. It's true that a community that really wanted to could start implementing their own bug fixes, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

mdaniel 3y ago

> Our commitment to jumping on the "screw you" licensing train means we can't even be bothered to use the SPX licensing identifier for BuSL correctly And, to save others the click, they're using the "4 year cliff" version

evanelias 3y ago
> we can't even be bothered to use the SPX licensing identifier for BuSL correctly Not taking a side on this, but just for historical context: the business source license was originally created by MariaDB, who referred to it as "BSL" and continue to do so [1]. So in the database world, calling it "BSL" is not especially unusual. If I understand correctly, SPDX already assigned BSL as the short-code for the Boost Software License, so they assigned BuSL to the Business Source License. Although the Boost Software License has been around since 2003, aside from Boost using it (obviously) it doesn't seem to be a popular choice among other projects. So adopters of the Business Source License then have to choose between agreeing with the license's creators vs agreeing with SPDX. [1] https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/ https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-mariadb/

cookiengineer 3y ago

The reason why more and more projects have to do that, is pretty much AWS. Most open source projects had managed services as an income stream for development, and AWS destroyed that while not giving back a single cent. So yeah, the real dragon here is Amazon in my opinion. The projects don't have a choice. It's either BSL/AGPL or dead project. In the world of enterprise, nobody is gonna introduce a new hosting provider if they already have all the ISO audits for AWS or Azure.

beanjuiceII 3y ago
this aws scapegoat keeps getting worse with no real merit behind it
josephcsible 3y ago
> It's either BSL/AGPL or dead project. AGPL is an infinitely better choice than BSL. Nobody would have been upset had they switched to that instead.
- wmf 3y ago
  I may be in a minority of one, but I consider it disingenuous for companies to use GPL/AGPL to drive people towards commercial licenses. BUSL is at least honest about what's going on.
  - josephcsible 3y ago
    How is it disingenuous? With GPL/AGPL it's actually FOSS. With BUSL it's not. If anything is disingenuous, it's the latter.
    - wmf 3y ago
      The result is the same so it's misleading that one is technically Open Source™ and the other is not.
      - 3y ago

tomcam 3y ago

What is your best suggestion to keep them in business then?

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
Two options: * Stay open source, switch to AGPL so AWS/Google won't use it * Stop being open source, but just say that's what you're doing instead of this dishonest "we <3 open source (just kidding we're not actually doing pen source)"
- kapilvt 3y ago
  last I checked neither of those would touch GPLv3 either.