3 ms·

Re-licensing open source software with non-open source licensing is not a commitment to open source, and I'm content with calling out this kind of cognitive dis

by jchw 3y ago

Re-licensing open source software with non-open source licensing is not a commitment to open source, and I'm content with calling out this kind of cognitive dissonance bullshit for as long as it takes. It's not the end of the world, but if you think that softens the blow, it doesn't. It's just plain-and-simple dishonesty.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
cmrdporcupine 3y ago
Clearly what they meant by "committed to open source" is "committed to taking advantage of other people's open source contributions". This is why we have the GPL, people. Defend your hard work.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Remember that copyleft licenses like the GPL, while necessary to prevent this kind of thing from happening, aren't themselves sufficient to do so. The project would also need to have accepted significant external contributions without a CLA.
- wmf 3y ago
  Were there any contributions?
  - hnbad 3y ago
    I think there used to be community-maintained drivers but it looks like most of them are dead and they only link to official ones. Most PRs on their repos also seem to be from org members (presumably employees?).
    - rom99 3y ago
      As a maintainer of the C#/.NET driver, I'd say our project isn't so much dead as it is complete. We use it in our products and if it requires updates due to breaking changes, we will maintain it, but otherwise it does what we need it to. Also worth noting that ArangoDB did have one of their own developers work on the project and made many contributions.
g00gler 3y ago
I’ve been struggling with this for a bit — I am working on something I’d like to make open source for every use except resale / selling a hosted version. Eg, you can have a private fork you use at work. You can host it for your own use anywhere you want. I just want to retain the exclusive rights to sell it. So 2 questions; Is this not open source? What’s a palatable license if you want to be able to sell a hosted version of your product?
- Macha 3y ago
  > Is this not open source? The OSI, FSF and DFSG would all agree that this is not open source if it imposes field of use restrictions. > What’s a palatable license if you want to be able to sell a hosted version of your product? The old approach here was to do open core, where the core software is open source but enterprisey wants like SAML/OIDC, auditing features, etc. were in a seperate edition. This generally doesn't get the same hostility as this type of license, where only old (and insecure versions) are available for open source usage. Or just accept that what you want _isn't_ open source, and go for source-available with a freeware edition. Just don't expect to have your cake and eat it with the publicity and profile boost of open source and the exclusive commercialization ability of proprietary software.
- josephcsible 3y ago
  Any license that prohibits selling a hosted version will necessarily fail to meet the Open Source Definition. Your best bet would instead be to pick a license that the companies that would do so are irrationally afraid of. The AGPLv3 is the usual choice for this. Even though, e.g., GCP would be legally allowed to, Google internally has an absolute policy against doing so: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
  - xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
    AGPL is certainly the popular choice but it is particularly difficult to wield properly in a corporate environment like GCP or AWS. If your goal is "ha ha fuck you megacorp good luck using THIS license" then congratulations, AGPL is for you. If your goal is to foster a community and ensure service providers contribute upstream, then AGPL fails to meet that bar as it is far too hostile for big businesses.

by jchw 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

cmrdporcupine 3y ago

Clearly what they meant by "committed to open source" is "committed to taking advantage of other people's open source contributions". This is why we have the GPL, people. Defend your hard work.

josephcsible 3y ago
Remember that copyleft licenses like the GPL, while necessary to prevent this kind of thing from happening, aren't themselves sufficient to do so. The project would also need to have accepted significant external contributions without a CLA.
wmf 3y ago
Were there any contributions?
- hnbad 3y ago
  I think there used to be community-maintained drivers but it looks like most of them are dead and they only link to official ones. Most PRs on their repos also seem to be from org members (presumably employees?).
  - rom99 3y ago
    As a maintainer of the C#/.NET driver, I'd say our project isn't so much dead as it is complete. We use it in our products and if it requires updates due to breaking changes, we will maintain it, but otherwise it does what we need it to. Also worth noting that ArangoDB did have one of their own developers work on the project and made many contributions.

g00gler 3y ago

I’ve been struggling with this for a bit — I am working on something I’d like to make open source for every use except resale / selling a hosted version. Eg, you can have a private fork you use at work. You can host it for your own use anywhere you want. I just want to retain the exclusive rights to sell it. So 2 questions; Is this not open source? What’s a palatable license if you want to be able to sell a hosted version of your product?

Macha 3y ago
> Is this not open source? The OSI, FSF and DFSG would all agree that this is not open source if it imposes field of use restrictions. > What’s a palatable license if you want to be able to sell a hosted version of your product? The old approach here was to do open core, where the core software is open source but enterprisey wants like SAML/OIDC, auditing features, etc. were in a seperate edition. This generally doesn't get the same hostility as this type of license, where only old (and insecure versions) are available for open source usage. Or just accept that what you want _isn't_ open source, and go for source-available with a freeware edition. Just don't expect to have your cake and eat it with the publicity and profile boost of open source and the exclusive commercialization ability of proprietary software.
josephcsible 3y ago
Any license that prohibits selling a hosted version will necessarily fail to meet the Open Source Definition. Your best bet would instead be to pick a license that the companies that would do so are irrationally afraid of. The AGPLv3 is the usual choice for this. Even though, e.g., GCP would be legally allowed to, Google internally has an absolute policy against doing so: https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl-policy https://opensource.google/documentation/reference/using/agpl...
- xyzzy_plugh 3y ago
  AGPL is certainly the popular choice but it is particularly difficult to wield properly in a corporate environment like GCP or AWS. If your goal is "ha ha fuck you megacorp good luck using THIS license" then congratulations, AGPL is for you. If your goal is to foster a community and ensure service providers contribute upstream, then AGPL fails to meet that bar as it is far too hostile for big businesses.