6 ms·

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 o

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.
    - mcny 3y ago
      What are your thoughts on AGPL? Is it not good enough? Do you think (lets say it out loud because we all know what we are talking about) Amazon Web Services will have advantage over you if you picked AGPL as your license? At the end of the day, I think your sales team has to earn its salary. It can't just phone it in like (I assume) Microsoft sales does with Microsoft SQL Server. Why isn't AGPL good enough? Genuinely asking, what change does it need to make it better? Edit: previously on hn https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34768668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34768668
      - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
- midasuni 3y ago
  What about the GPL prevents adoption?
  - jwildeboer 3y ago
    The flawed beliefs of Venture Capitalism, IMHO. (A)GPL scares their money away.
  - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
    GPL doesn’t work in an environment that requires further restrictions or where the distributor doesn’t want to uphold it. For instance you won’t be able to put GPL code onto the App Store. The viral nature of the license also carries perceived business risk and harms adoption.
    - frognumber 3y ago
      I'll give a small suggestion: If you want to reach consensus, don't use pejorative terms. Here's a history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Viral_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Viral_licensing FYI: The Linux kernel is GPL, and is used on most cell phones, routers, and a huge number of other embedded devices. It powers most of the servers on the internet too. It's simply not the case that it has been any hindrance to commercial use. You should reconsider some of your comments. You equate GPL with non-commercial. I've built software under GPL-style licenses which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars of commercial value. It limits some modes of commercialization, but this is one of the places your thinking is confused.
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."

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.
  - mcny 3y ago
    What are your thoughts on AGPL? Is it not good enough? Do you think (lets say it out loud because we all know what we are talking about) Amazon Web Services will have advantage over you if you picked AGPL as your license? At the end of the day, I think your sales team has to earn its salary. It can't just phone it in like (I assume) Microsoft sales does with Microsoft SQL Server. Why isn't AGPL good enough? Genuinely asking, what change does it need to make it better? Edit: previously on hn https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34768668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34768668
    - the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
midasuni 3y ago
What about the GPL prevents adoption?
- jwildeboer 3y ago
  The flawed beliefs of Venture Capitalism, IMHO. (A)GPL scares their money away.
- the_mitsuhiko 3y ago
  GPL doesn’t work in an environment that requires further restrictions or where the distributor doesn’t want to uphold it. For instance you won’t be able to put GPL code onto the App Store. The viral nature of the license also carries perceived business risk and harms adoption.
  - frognumber 3y ago
    I'll give a small suggestion: If you want to reach consensus, don't use pejorative terms. Here's a history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Viral_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Viral_licensing FYI: The Linux kernel is GPL, and is used on most cell phones, routers, and a huge number of other embedded devices. It powers most of the servers on the internet too. It's simply not the case that it has been any hindrance to commercial use. You should reconsider some of your comments. You equate GPL with non-commercial. I've built software under GPL-style licenses which has generated hundreds of millions of dollars of commercial value. It limits some modes of commercialization, but this is one of the places your thinking is confused.

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."