5 ms·

I think you're confusing open source and free software. Open source was never about the full stack. It was exactly what you found in Wikipedia. The issue today

I think you're confusing open source and free software. Open source was never about the full stack. It was exactly what you found in Wikipedia. The issue today is that people want more than open source ever promised. The source is available, you can make your own changes, you can distribute them or even start a business but that's not enough for most people/companies. They want a ecosystem, a non-profit organizing the effort, ability to buy support, etc. None of that were in the initial goals.

happymellon 3y ago
This is why all these organisations which are promoting non-free licenses as "open source" when they mean source available is completely silly. Either they are BSD/GPL and accept competition or they do not, and they are not open source. The only update that I agree with is the AGPL because of the nature that software is being closed back up and not shared for studying purposes.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
vlovich123 3y ago
> or even start a business Only if you’re not in the SaaS space. If you are, then open-sourcing your tech is a risky strategy because then if you have any success, you start to compete with bigger players who take what you’ve invested & then it’s a game of $ which is harder to compete with.
- j33zusjuice 3y ago
  It can still be open source. The AGPL was designed for protections in that scenario. Unless you’re suggesting the AGPL is insufficient. There’s another one that’s really similar, too.
  - vlovich123 3y ago
    I don’t know many software developers that are OK using AGPL software. The license will infect all products that someone may try to go build even if it doesn’t compete.
  - SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
    MongoDB and Elastic famously didn't find it to be sufficient, swapping to a new and non-OSI-approved license to protect against big cloud providers offering managed versions of their software.
- toast0 3y ago
  When has open sourcing your business's core software not been a risky strategy? If you are a software as a product company and you open source your software, someone else may put it into a box and sell it beside you. If you are a software as a business process company and you open source your software, some else may build into their business and compete against you in whatever your marketable output is. If you are a software as a service company, and you open source your software, someone may build a service that is remarkably similar to yours. Open source is great for things your company depends on --- maybe you get community improvements, and you can build and change it how you like; but if the core of your business is open source, that's a choice that makes it very easy for competition to form. OTOH, if you want to build something that other companies depend on, and there's open source alternatives, it's going to be hard going; I wouldn't use a closed source web server or database server or search engine, given there are good open source options; although maybe if those options don't work out, I'd consider a closed source vendor.
jlarocco 3y ago
> The source is available, you can make your own changes, you can distribute them or even start a business but that's not enough for most people/companies. You really can't in the original sense, though. A person using Facebook, Spotify, or YouTube can't make any modifications to those products whatsoever despite a lot of the code being "open source". It was never about taking somebody else's code and making a business. More disappointing, users often don't even have direct access to their own data on those services.
FwarkTheNark 3y ago
Ok, but Free Software has also failed at the stated goals—we still have no control over the software we use even if it's copyleft software backing it. This is a useless comment.

happymellon 3y ago

This is why all these organisations which are promoting non-free licenses as "open source" when they mean source available is completely silly. Either they are BSD/GPL and accept competition or they do not, and they are not open source. The only update that I agree with is the AGPL because of the nature that software is being closed back up and not shared for studying purposes.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

vlovich123 3y ago

> or even start a business Only if you’re not in the SaaS space. If you are, then open-sourcing your tech is a risky strategy because then if you have any success, you start to compete with bigger players who take what you’ve invested & then it’s a game of $ which is harder to compete with.

j33zusjuice 3y ago
It can still be open source. The AGPL was designed for protections in that scenario. Unless you’re suggesting the AGPL is insufficient. There’s another one that’s really similar, too.
- vlovich123 3y ago
  I don’t know many software developers that are OK using AGPL software. The license will infect all products that someone may try to go build even if it doesn’t compete.
- SpicyLemonZest 3y ago
  MongoDB and Elastic famously didn't find it to be sufficient, swapping to a new and non-OSI-approved license to protect against big cloud providers offering managed versions of their software.
toast0 3y ago
When has open sourcing your business's core software not been a risky strategy? If you are a software as a product company and you open source your software, someone else may put it into a box and sell it beside you. If you are a software as a business process company and you open source your software, some else may build into their business and compete against you in whatever your marketable output is. If you are a software as a service company, and you open source your software, someone may build a service that is remarkably similar to yours. Open source is great for things your company depends on --- maybe you get community improvements, and you can build and change it how you like; but if the core of your business is open source, that's a choice that makes it very easy for competition to form. OTOH, if you want to build something that other companies depend on, and there's open source alternatives, it's going to be hard going; I wouldn't use a closed source web server or database server or search engine, given there are good open source options; although maybe if those options don't work out, I'd consider a closed source vendor.

jlarocco 3y ago

> The source is available, you can make your own changes, you can distribute them or even start a business but that's not enough for most people/companies. You really can't in the original sense, though. A person using Facebook, Spotify, or YouTube can't make any modifications to those products whatsoever despite a lot of the code being "open source". It was never about taking somebody else's code and making a business. More disappointing, users often don't even have direct access to their own data on those services.

FwarkTheNark 3y ago

Ok, but Free Software has also failed at the stated goals—we still have no control over the software we use even if it's copyleft software backing it. This is a useless comment.