5 ms·

Is "source available" that bad?

21 points by gavinhoward 3y ago

RcouF1uZ4gsC 3y ago
It is not bad but it is not open source and is closer to proprietary software. Even Windows is source an available with the proper NDAs. And it does remove a freedom from the user, that of paying someone else to host and run the software on their behalf. This seems like the software version of inkjets, sell the printer for free and make money on consumables while locking in their users to buy from them. In this way, “Source Available” gives away the software but locks the user into only being able to use them to host. And before you say the user can self host, be aware that many times the user may not be a tech company and self-hosting would be too hard for them. That is why many organizations use cloud companies like AWS, etc and forcing the user to not be able to use their host of choice is taking away user freedom.
- gavinhoward 3y ago
  > It is not bad but it is not open source and is closer to proprietary software. Even Windows is source an available with the proper NDAs. Claiming that it is closer to proprietary software when users still get the source and the same freedoms as FOSS is disingenuous. > And it does remove a freedom from the user, that of paying someone else to host and run the software on their behalf. No, they can pay the authors. And we are talking about control, not freedom. I make that very explicit in the post. And the claim that paying someone else besides author is a user choice has nothing to do with the discussion about user control over their own devices. Sure, it may take an economic choice away from users, but it does not remove their control. And to be frank, if users were going to choose cannibals, then I don't feel bad for them. My warning in the post applies to users too. And nothing stops the authors from offering a different license to wannabe cannibals for money if they hold all of the copyright.
  - mpixel 3y ago
    The thing is, information leaks. You can go and read the Windows source code, if you want to, you just would get busted if you actually use it to build your own Windows or something. Likewise source code is a shared a lot in my experience, i.e. the important software that's closed but has the important customer, the important customer gets the access when they ask for it. This depends on who you are and what you sell, of course. So in practice, the difference isn't that huge. That said, you are right too, THERE IS a difference. And it's better than entirely closed source. So I will prefer the source-available over completely-closed-source, but I'm not going to be grateful about it. And then there's realities, if I'm writing business critical software that my life depends on, I'll make it closed source in all likelihood. I'm not Stallman. So I don't blame anyone for caring about their interests, it's entirely fair.
    - gavinhoward 3y ago
      > the important software that's closed but has the important customer, the important customer gets the access when they ask for it. End users are rarely that important customer, so for end users, there is a difference. > So in practice, the difference isn't that huge. Except that with SAMS, you still can share. I said as much. And you can actually get the source if you're not a VIP. That matters because sometimes, even with FOSS, end users do not get the source if the source is not copyleft enough.
      - mpixel 3y ago
        Ultimately, I think we disagree on the essence of the issue and many consider the 'almost enough' option to be worse than 'enough' which is the crust of this issue. That said, I respect your opinion -- I've seen your comments on the thread and I see where you are coming from.
        gavinhoward 3y ago
        Fair enough.
  - happymellon 3y ago
    > Claiming that it is closer to proprietary software when users still get the source and the same freedoms as FOSS is disingenuous They absolutely do not get the same freedoms as FOSS. That's literally the point of source available, it isn't FOSS. Not bad, not closed source, but not FOSS. Although I don't believe you quite meant it like that based upon the essay.
    - gavinhoward 3y ago
      > Not bad, not closed source, but not FOSS. Although I don't believe you quite meant it like that based upon the essay. Oh, I did. But my point in the essay is that FOSS can actually be bad for end users because companies can make a lot of it proprietary. Actually proprietary. And they do. This is worse for users than copyleft SAMS. The people who keep claiming that SAMS gives less control to end users are dealers.
      - happymellon 3y ago
        But it contradicts what you say because I cannot use it to support other people.
        gavinhoward 3y ago
        Yes, you can. You just can't make money from that support.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  > It is not bad but it is not open source and is closer to proprietary software. Exactly this. I've been producing both OSS and proprietary software for decades. I've always provided access to the source of the proprietary software I sell -- but that is still proprietary software. The license that comes with it bears no resemblance to an open source license.
  - gavinhoward 3y ago
    Okay, but your users can't share your proprietary stuff, can they? With SAMS, users can have the source, modify, and share. With proprietary, it's hit and miss if they even get the source. Being able to modify is rarer, and being able to share is even rarer. SAMS has at least three things in common with FOSS and only one in common with proprietary (no cannibalism). How could it be closer to proprietary?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      > your users can't share your proprietary stuff, can they? They can't share the source code with the default license, no, but other licenses can always be negotiated. > SAMS has at least three things in common with FOSS and only one in common with proprietary (no cannibalism). How could it be closer to proprietary? I'll be really honest here -- I'm pretty sure I didn't fully understand the point your post was making. It sounds to me like you have a problem with the virality component of OSS and SAMS, as you describe it, is just OSS without that. But the virality component was never a philosophical part of OSS. It exists in most OSS licenses in order to ensure that the project remains open source in the future. So, to me, SAMS sounds pretty much exactly the same as OSS. As I said, I'm sure I failed to grasp something here.
      - gavinhoward 3y ago
        > It sounds to me like you have a problem with the virality component of OSS and SAMS, as you describe it, is just OSS without that. You did misunderstand, and I apologize for that. The one quote I put in about not liking virality was an admission that I used to not like virality for bad reasons. My opinion has changed, which is why I have a note near the end that copyleft is a good thing, that it should be the default, even for SAMS. Especially for SAMS, really. The difference between SAMS and FOSS is that FOSS gives an advantage to cannibals, and non-FOSS SAMS takes that advantage away from the cannibals. For the end user, nothing should change between SAMS and FOSS (if my definition is right), and that is probably where your confusion comes from.
prepend 3y ago
Seeing the source code isn’t that terribly important and loses the main benefits of FOSS. I think the main benefit is community involvement in submitting bugs, contributing changes, writing docs, and being part of the project. Even if contributors do the main work, this long tail of user contribution is so important. With source available, I’m not contributing any of my work toward a proprietary project. I’m happy to spend hours researching and writing up a bug if my work goes toward a common good. Not so much if it just funds some corporation with free labor. I think it’s a distraction to try to force this into a good/bad dichotomy. I don’t hear anyone saying that “source available” is bad. Just that it’s different than FOSS. There’s nothing wrong with selling software. I just think it’s inferior to FOSS for producing high quality software.
- kweingar 3y ago
  Important to note that community involvement is not core to FOSS. Many FOSS projects do not accept outside contributions.
  - prepend 3y ago
    Good point, but it’s common. And it’s possible. And the community has the freedom to fork, even if they don’t. And pretty much every successful FOSS project accepts bug reports from users. So that’s still a contribution even though it’s not source code.
    - gavinhoward 3y ago
      > And the community has the freedom to fork, even if they don’t. So does a SAMS community. They just can't turn it commercial (for a noncommercial license), or they have to wait for full FOSS (for a delayed FOSS license), etc. > And pretty much every successful FOSS project accepts bug reports from users. So that’s still a contribution even though it’s not source code. That is still possible with SAMS.
      - prepend 3y ago

21 points by gavinhoward 3y ago

It is not bad but it is not open source and is closer to proprietary software. Even Windows is source an available with the proper NDAs. And it does remove a freedom from the user, that of paying someone else to host and run the software on their behalf. This seems like the software version of inkjets, sell the printer for free and make money on consumables while locking in their users to buy from them. In this way, “Source Available” gives away the software but locks the user into only being able to use them to host. And before you say the user can self host, be aware that many times the user may not be a tech company and self-hosting would be too hard for them. That is why many organizations use cloud companies like AWS, etc and forcing the user to not be able to use their host of choice is taking away user freedom.

gavinhoward 3y ago
> It is not bad but it is not open source and is closer to proprietary software. Even Windows is source an available with the proper NDAs. Claiming that it is closer to proprietary software when users still get the source and the same freedoms as FOSS is disingenuous. > And it does remove a freedom from the user, that of paying someone else to host and run the software on their behalf. No, they can pay the authors. And we are talking about control, not freedom. I make that very explicit in the post. And the claim that paying someone else besides author is a user choice has nothing to do with the discussion about user control over their own devices. Sure, it may take an economic choice away from users, but it does not remove their control. And to be frank, if users were going to choose cannibals, then I don't feel bad for them. My warning in the post applies to users too. And nothing stops the authors from offering a different license to wannabe cannibals for money if they hold all of the copyright.
- mpixel 3y ago
  The thing is, information leaks. You can go and read the Windows source code, if you want to, you just would get busted if you actually use it to build your own Windows or something. Likewise source code is a shared a lot in my experience, i.e. the important software that's closed but has the important customer, the important customer gets the access when they ask for it. This depends on who you are and what you sell, of course. So in practice, the difference isn't that huge. That said, you are right too, THERE IS a difference. And it's better than entirely closed source. So I will prefer the source-available over completely-closed-source, but I'm not going to be grateful about it. And then there's realities, if I'm writing business critical software that my life depends on, I'll make it closed source in all likelihood. I'm not Stallman. So I don't blame anyone for caring about their interests, it's entirely fair.
  - gavinhoward 3y ago
    > the important software that's closed but has the important customer, the important customer gets the access when they ask for it. End users are rarely that important customer, so for end users, there is a difference. > So in practice, the difference isn't that huge. Except that with SAMS, you still can share. I said as much. And you can actually get the source if you're not a VIP. That matters because sometimes, even with FOSS, end users do not get the source if the source is not copyleft enough.
    - mpixel 3y ago
      Ultimately, I think we disagree on the essence of the issue and many consider the 'almost enough' option to be worse than 'enough' which is the crust of this issue. That said, I respect your opinion -- I've seen your comments on the thread and I see where you are coming from.
      - gavinhoward 3y ago
        Fair enough.
- happymellon 3y ago
  > Claiming that it is closer to proprietary software when users still get the source and the same freedoms as FOSS is disingenuous They absolutely do not get the same freedoms as FOSS. That's literally the point of source available, it isn't FOSS. Not bad, not closed source, but not FOSS. Although I don't believe you quite meant it like that based upon the essay.
  - gavinhoward 3y ago
    > Not bad, not closed source, but not FOSS. Although I don't believe you quite meant it like that based upon the essay. Oh, I did. But my point in the essay is that FOSS can actually be bad for end users because companies can make a lot of it proprietary. Actually proprietary. And they do. This is worse for users than copyleft SAMS. The people who keep claiming that SAMS gives less control to end users are dealers.
    - happymellon 3y ago
      But it contradicts what you say because I cannot use it to support other people.
      - gavinhoward 3y ago
        Yes, you can. You just can't make money from that support.
JohnFen 3y ago
> It is not bad but it is not open source and is closer to proprietary software. Exactly this. I've been producing both OSS and proprietary software for decades. I've always provided access to the source of the proprietary software I sell -- but that is still proprietary software. The license that comes with it bears no resemblance to an open source license.
- gavinhoward 3y ago
  Okay, but your users can't share your proprietary stuff, can they? With SAMS, users can have the source, modify, and share. With proprietary, it's hit and miss if they even get the source. Being able to modify is rarer, and being able to share is even rarer. SAMS has at least three things in common with FOSS and only one in common with proprietary (no cannibalism). How could it be closer to proprietary?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    > your users can't share your proprietary stuff, can they? They can't share the source code with the default license, no, but other licenses can always be negotiated. > SAMS has at least three things in common with FOSS and only one in common with proprietary (no cannibalism). How could it be closer to proprietary? I'll be really honest here -- I'm pretty sure I didn't fully understand the point your post was making. It sounds to me like you have a problem with the virality component of OSS and SAMS, as you describe it, is just OSS without that. But the virality component was never a philosophical part of OSS. It exists in most OSS licenses in order to ensure that the project remains open source in the future. So, to me, SAMS sounds pretty much exactly the same as OSS. As I said, I'm sure I failed to grasp something here.
    - gavinhoward 3y ago
      > It sounds to me like you have a problem with the virality component of OSS and SAMS, as you describe it, is just OSS without that. You did misunderstand, and I apologize for that. The one quote I put in about not liking virality was an admission that I used to not like virality for bad reasons. My opinion has changed, which is why I have a note near the end that copyleft is a good thing, that it should be the default, even for SAMS. Especially for SAMS, really. The difference between SAMS and FOSS is that FOSS gives an advantage to cannibals, and non-FOSS SAMS takes that advantage away from the cannibals. For the end user, nothing should change between SAMS and FOSS (if my definition is right), and that is probably where your confusion comes from.

prepend 3y ago

Seeing the source code isn’t that terribly important and loses the main benefits of FOSS. I think the main benefit is community involvement in submitting bugs, contributing changes, writing docs, and being part of the project. Even if contributors do the main work, this long tail of user contribution is so important. With source available, I’m not contributing any of my work toward a proprietary project. I’m happy to spend hours researching and writing up a bug if my work goes toward a common good. Not so much if it just funds some corporation with free labor. I think it’s a distraction to try to force this into a good/bad dichotomy. I don’t hear anyone saying that “source available” is bad. Just that it’s different than FOSS. There’s nothing wrong with selling software. I just think it’s inferior to FOSS for producing high quality software.

kweingar 3y ago
Important to note that community involvement is not core to FOSS. Many FOSS projects do not accept outside contributions.
- prepend 3y ago
  Good point, but it’s common. And it’s possible. And the community has the freedom to fork, even if they don’t. And pretty much every successful FOSS project accepts bug reports from users. So that’s still a contribution even though it’s not source code.
  - gavinhoward 3y ago
    > And the community has the freedom to fork, even if they don’t. So does a SAMS community. They just can't turn it commercial (for a noncommercial license), or they have to wait for full FOSS (for a delayed FOSS license), etc. > And pretty much every successful FOSS project accepts bug reports from users. So that’s still a contribution even though it’s not source code. That is still possible with SAMS.
    - prepend 3y ago