6 ms·

> What's concerning, though, is that it's completely unclear that the author understands why this license makes sense, so it's liable to be misused. It feels mo

> What's concerning, though, is that it's completely unclear that the author understands why this license makes sense, so it's liable to be misused. It feels more accidentally-stumbled-upon. The author of the post (me) was part of the group at Sentry that created that license. I can’t dispel your interpretation that my writing is “confused” but I can assure you that a lot of thought went into the license. That blog post is not a “here are all the reasons for the license” but it narrows down on a very specific aspect of it. You can read the original announcement post for more context and you can also listen to a panel discussion about it with me, Chad from Sentry and Heather Meeker who helped us draft it: https://www.youtube.com/live/UB9fo7pnDzY?si=0HVI6FsR42Pn5yP2 https://www.youtube.com/live/UB9fo7pnDzY?si=0HVI6FsR42Pn5yP2

James_K 3y ago
For what it's worth, your writing is confused. For instance: > There cannot be a limbo where the rights holder prevents the flourishing of a fork out of lack of interest or fear. The entire point of this license is to prevent forks of software. It makes it especially easy to do so by simply pushing small incompatible changes on a two-year schedule. But the really strange part about this is that it assumes a developer that is scared of allowing their work to be forked would decide to use a license that forces them to allow their work to be forked. They simply wouldn't. That's the exact thing they were scared of.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
  > The entire point of this license is to prevent forks of software. If that was the case, it would be a different license. The point of the license is to enable forks, but with some restrictions. There are many (once) Open Source software projects where the rights holder at one point made decisions that required a full community (or even commercial fork). The license does not want to take that opportunity away. From MySQL to MariaDB, from OpenOffice to LibreOffice, many projects no longer live under the original leadership. There are also other cases such as Xapian which are stuck under a GPL license that prevented adoption, but the rights holder (I believe it was Orange) had no interest in the project but also no desire to relicense under something that would permit commercialization. The point of the license is ensure that the commercial entity (us) that is funding the project, can do so without taking away the long term viability of the project even beyond the hypothetical future non-existence of that entity.
  - James_K 3y ago
    I feel like one of us is fundamentally misunderstanding this license. My understanding is that if I wanted to fork a piece of software, this licence would prevent me from doing so for two years. Then after those two years, I would essentially be stuck using an old version of the source and have to play catch-up with the devs*, who would be able to use my work for free but I would not be allowed to use theirs. Had this license not been used there would be nothing preventing me from forking the software. My interpretation of this license is that it's effectively saying: "you can't do anything with this while we're working on it". Which is fair enough and has its benefits, but it's not open source as much as it is a promise to become open source if the licencor ever loses interest. All those examples you cited weren't using this licence, and probably would have had a much harder job creating their forks if this license was used. Xapian specifically highlights a flaw in your logic. The creators of Xapian wouldn't have used this license because they don't want to re-licence their software. The only people that would use this license are ones who were already willing to re-license their software. The existence of this license doesn't actually solve the problem because you can't force people to use this license any more than you could force them to use an open license. *edit: it's worth pointing out that this really does basically kill any chance of a fork. Normally you could start a fork with a single dev and then grow it naturally, but with this license you need a team the size of the official team to put in two years of work, and to keep doing that in perpetuity.
    - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
      > My understanding is that if I wanted to fork a piece of software, this licence would prevent me from doing so for two years. Then after those two years, I would essentially be stuck using an old version of the source and have to play catch-up with the devs, who would be able to use my work for free but I would not be allowed to use theirs. The answer is a bit of yes, and a bit of no. If the project is actively maintained then that company that does so, has the first mover advantage. If that company slows down / does something dodgy, you can fork it that very moment. You can't commercially compete for two years which is correct, but it opens up that opportunity. > Had this license not been used there would be nothing preventing me from forking the software. Except potentially an even worse license or an open core model where the best bits are not public at all. I do not believe this to be a better model. You're right that in the hypothetical situation a project could be open source without any restrictions and the original developers can reap the benefits without any free-riders coming along. But our experience has shown that just appealing to the good in people doesn't work. > All those examples you cited weren't using this licence, and probably would have had a much harder job creating their forks if this license was used. I would argue that that is not the case. Xapian under a hypothetical FSL would long have been able to commercialize it. MariaDB had more options for commercialization than they do today because of the GPL limitations. That said, I'm not working there so I cannot say how much the GPL was a hindrance.
- stavros 3y ago
  > It makes it especially easy to do so by simply pushing small incompatible changes on a two-year schedule. What does that achieve? You can just use the two-year-old copy of the code.
  - James_K 3y ago
    I suppose not much. So the licence does succeed in forcing software to go open source after two years, but before that, it still effectively forces the maintainers of forks to put in an equal amount of effort to the holder of the licence. This makes a fork much harder since it would require a development team equal in size to the official one two years to bring it up to date.
    - layer8 3y ago
      That’s only if you care about the same additions that the original developers do. However, a fork is usually motivated by a disagreement on the trajectory. Or you don’t actually want to fork, but only want to monetize their work SaaS-style, which is exactly what the FSL is intended to prevent.
- patcon 3y ago
  I have no skin in this game, but reading your comments frustrates me
- karmakaze 3y ago
  This is key. > The entire point of this license is to prevent forks of software. It makes it especially easy to do so by simply pushing small incompatible changes on a two-year schedule. I couldn't say it's the motivation, but this easy ability to make forks unable to effectively stay in sync goes against the motivations of free software. And for that reason, "I'm out."
frognumber 3y ago
> I can’t dispel your interpretation that my writing is “confused” but I can assure you that a lot of thought went into the license. That doesn't contradict what I wrote. The thought shows. What it doesn't show is understanding or (and I don't mean this aggressively, but I'm worried it will read as such) competence. To give an analogy, if a lawyer came learned programming and wrote a very clever piece of code, but without any of the experience or background that develops from having been a software engineer or formally trained, you might get something interesting, but probably not necessarily helpful. There's a body of things which people in the field know from decades of collective experience which they would be missing. When there's a post like mine, there are two possibilities: 1) You're missing something 2) I'm missing something I would at least be open-minded to the former, since that would have implications which could adversely impact your business. To be crystal clear: I don't think the license is bad, stupid, or unreasonable (your previous one, in contrast, was). I would never do business with BUSL. I would with FSL. It's a reasonable scheme. However, the connecting logic and analysis between the license and business strategy is missing, confused, or incorrect. It's also incorrect about the implications of GPL/AGPL and dual-license models. Without that logic, you will misuse it. You won't be able to leverage the advantages of open-source, and you might be blindsided by the downside. You're trying to do something novel. In business, I tend to think about things which are: - Competitive advantages. There, I'm trying to do something better, novel, and develop unique expertise. - Everything else. There, I follow best practices, outsource, and otherwise don't invest. You're very much doing something novel outside an area of your (personal) area of expertise. My advise would be to either: (1) Go with best practices (2) Develop expertise. For the latter, my advice would be to talk to someone like myself, Eben Moglen, or otherwise, until you can articulate their arguments, how they think about licenses, understand why that's reasonable, and articulate their arguments to others (not cynical versions of them) to the point where someone like myself believes you understand them. At that point, you're ready to innovate from there to gain business advantage. Before that, you're not; innovation is likely to lead to market disadvantage. It may also be that people within your business have that background (I don't know how your positioned). Perhaps Heather and Chad know something you don't. In that case, it's incumbent for you (and others inside) to pick it up, so you can leverage it in day-to-day decisions and outwards communications. Consider me as a potential customer. If I read a blog post like yours, it will reduce your odds of a sale, since it raised red flags about your competence in my head. If nothing else, if you understand that perspective, you can avoid raising red flags (even if I'm the one missing something; others will be missing the same thing too). It's good business to dispel the notion your writing is confused, since sales is all about winning hearts and minds.

James_K 3y ago

For what it's worth, your writing is confused. For instance: > There cannot be a limbo where the rights holder prevents the flourishing of a fork out of lack of interest or fear. The entire point of this license is to prevent forks of software. It makes it especially easy to do so by simply pushing small incompatible changes on a two-year schedule. But the really strange part about this is that it assumes a developer that is scared of allowing their work to be forked would decide to use a license that forces them to allow their work to be forked. They simply wouldn't. That's the exact thing they were scared of.

the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
> The entire point of this license is to prevent forks of software. If that was the case, it would be a different license. The point of the license is to enable forks, but with some restrictions. There are many (once) Open Source software projects where the rights holder at one point made decisions that required a full community (or even commercial fork). The license does not want to take that opportunity away. From MySQL to MariaDB, from OpenOffice to LibreOffice, many projects no longer live under the original leadership. There are also other cases such as Xapian which are stuck under a GPL license that prevented adoption, but the rights holder (I believe it was Orange) had no interest in the project but also no desire to relicense under something that would permit commercialization. The point of the license is ensure that the commercial entity (us) that is funding the project, can do so without taking away the long term viability of the project even beyond the hypothetical future non-existence of that entity.
- James_K 3y ago
  I feel like one of us is fundamentally misunderstanding this license. My understanding is that if I wanted to fork a piece of software, this licence would prevent me from doing so for two years. Then after those two years, I would essentially be stuck using an old version of the source and have to play catch-up with the devs*, who would be able to use my work for free but I would not be allowed to use theirs. Had this license not been used there would be nothing preventing me from forking the software. My interpretation of this license is that it's effectively saying: "you can't do anything with this while we're working on it". Which is fair enough and has its benefits, but it's not open source as much as it is a promise to become open source if the licencor ever loses interest. All those examples you cited weren't using this licence, and probably would have had a much harder job creating their forks if this license was used. Xapian specifically highlights a flaw in your logic. The creators of Xapian wouldn't have used this license because they don't want to re-licence their software. The only people that would use this license are ones who were already willing to re-license their software. The existence of this license doesn't actually solve the problem because you can't force people to use this license any more than you could force them to use an open license. *edit: it's worth pointing out that this really does basically kill any chance of a fork. Normally you could start a fork with a single dev and then grow it naturally, but with this license you need a team the size of the official team to put in two years of work, and to keep doing that in perpetuity.
  - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
    > My understanding is that if I wanted to fork a piece of software, this licence would prevent me from doing so for two years. Then after those two years, I would essentially be stuck using an old version of the source and have to play catch-up with the devs, who would be able to use my work for free but I would not be allowed to use theirs. The answer is a bit of yes, and a bit of no. If the project is actively maintained then that company that does so, has the first mover advantage. If that company slows down / does something dodgy, you can fork it that very moment. You can't commercially compete for two years which is correct, but it opens up that opportunity. > Had this license not been used there would be nothing preventing me from forking the software. Except potentially an even worse license or an open core model where the best bits are not public at all. I do not believe this to be a better model. You're right that in the hypothetical situation a project could be open source without any restrictions and the original developers can reap the benefits without any free-riders coming along. But our experience has shown that just appealing to the good in people doesn't work. > All those examples you cited weren't using this licence, and probably would have had a much harder job creating their forks if this license was used. I would argue that that is not the case. Xapian under a hypothetical FSL would long have been able to commercialize it. MariaDB had more options for commercialization than they do today because of the GPL limitations. That said, I'm not working there so I cannot say how much the GPL was a hindrance.
stavros 3y ago
> It makes it especially easy to do so by simply pushing small incompatible changes on a two-year schedule. What does that achieve? You can just use the two-year-old copy of the code.
- James_K 3y ago
  I suppose not much. So the licence does succeed in forcing software to go open source after two years, but before that, it still effectively forces the maintainers of forks to put in an equal amount of effort to the holder of the licence. This makes a fork much harder since it would require a development team equal in size to the official one two years to bring it up to date.
  - layer8 3y ago
    That’s only if you care about the same additions that the original developers do. However, a fork is usually motivated by a disagreement on the trajectory. Or you don’t actually want to fork, but only want to monetize their work SaaS-style, which is exactly what the FSL is intended to prevent.
patcon 3y ago
I have no skin in this game, but reading your comments frustrates me
karmakaze 3y ago
This is key. > The entire point of this license is to prevent forks of software. It makes it especially easy to do so by simply pushing small incompatible changes on a two-year schedule. I couldn't say it's the motivation, but this easy ability to make forks unable to effectively stay in sync goes against the motivations of free software. And for that reason, "I'm out."

frognumber 3y ago

> I can’t dispel your interpretation that my writing is “confused” but I can assure you that a lot of thought went into the license. That doesn't contradict what I wrote. The thought shows. What it doesn't show is understanding or (and I don't mean this aggressively, but I'm worried it will read as such) competence. To give an analogy, if a lawyer came learned programming and wrote a very clever piece of code, but without any of the experience or background that develops from having been a software engineer or formally trained, you might get something interesting, but probably not necessarily helpful. There's a body of things which people in the field know from decades of collective experience which they would be missing. When there's a post like mine, there are two possibilities: 1) You're missing something 2) I'm missing something I would at least be open-minded to the former, since that would have implications which could adversely impact your business. To be crystal clear: I don't think the license is bad, stupid, or unreasonable (your previous one, in contrast, was). I would never do business with BUSL. I would with FSL. It's a reasonable scheme. However, the connecting logic and analysis between the license and business strategy is missing, confused, or incorrect. It's also incorrect about the implications of GPL/AGPL and dual-license models. Without that logic, you will misuse it. You won't be able to leverage the advantages of open-source, and you might be blindsided by the downside. You're trying to do something novel. In business, I tend to think about things which are: - Competitive advantages. There, I'm trying to do something better, novel, and develop unique expertise. - Everything else. There, I follow best practices, outsource, and otherwise don't invest. You're very much doing something novel outside an area of your (personal) area of expertise. My advise would be to either: (1) Go with best practices (2) Develop expertise. For the latter, my advice would be to talk to someone like myself, Eben Moglen, or otherwise, until you can articulate their arguments, how they think about licenses, understand why that's reasonable, and articulate their arguments to others (not cynical versions of them) to the point where someone like myself believes you understand them. At that point, you're ready to innovate from there to gain business advantage. Before that, you're not; innovation is likely to lead to market disadvantage. It may also be that people within your business have that background (I don't know how your positioned). Perhaps Heather and Chad know something you don't. In that case, it's incumbent for you (and others inside) to pick it up, so you can leverage it in day-to-day decisions and outwards communications. Consider me as a potential customer. If I read a blog post like yours, it will reduce your odds of a sale, since it raised red flags about your competence in my head. If nothing else, if you understand that perspective, you can avoid raising red flags (even if I'm the one missing something; others will be missing the same thing too). It's good business to dispel the notion your writing is confused, since sales is all about winning hearts and minds.