3 ms·

That's a disingenuous argument when proprietary code such as Windows, AWS, and Google have just as much widespread acceptance, and they often did it by cannibal

That's a disingenuous argument when proprietary code such as Windows, AWS, and Google have just as much widespread acceptance, and they often did it by cannibalizing FOSS.

bcrl 3y ago
Last I checked, all those organizations were contributing many changes every release to the Linux kernel to improve performance, fix bugs and add features.
- gavinhoward 3y ago
  Because they have to for their own purposes. Even Google still "contributes" to Android. But they made it unusable without Play Services, which is entirely proprietary. There are ways to use FOSS to further monopoly and still look like the good guys by contributing. Doesn't make them any less the bad guys.
  - bcrl 3y ago
    Software licensing has almost nothing to do with monopolies you mentioned. Google's monopoly comes from the position of power it has entrenched itself in by controlling search and using that control to make its advertising platform ubiquitous while buying up competitors in the online advertising space. In fact, I would argue that open source licenses makes it easier to compete against the cloud platforms you listed. Smaller companies like Hetzner can build their own private cloud platforms using virtualization software like QEMU (another very healthy project licensed under the GPL) and open source orchestration software. They can obtain and build on this software because it is open source and freely available (free as in both beer and money). "Source available" licenses aren't an improvement on this.
    - gavinhoward 3y ago
      Sure, they're not an "improvement" on this, but Hetzner becomes just another cannibal in that case.
      - bcrl 3y ago
        WTF? Hetzner has built a platform to deliver services to their customers. They have built a business that takes care of putting in physical infrastructure by constructing buildings to house servers, deliver network connectivity, cooling and power while financing that infrastructure and delivering service as a great monthly price. QEMU is but a small part of that, and I'd venture a guess that the cost of building the software to run their business is around the same order of magnitude as the physical infrastructure. That's hardly a parasitic business. Moreover, Google is the parasite in this case. Hetzner was founded in 1997 before Google even existed, running cloud-like business before Google launched their first service. Google isn't the reason software like QEMU exists, although they have certainly helped improve it. Not sure why you're choosing to be so ignorant of the history of how we got here today.
        gavinhoward 3y ago
        Hetzner is a cannibal of QEMU,not Google. I do not dispute that Hetzner built that stuff, but in "The Economics of Programming Languages," Evan says that cannibals need to build a business too. What they don't need to build is the software they cannibalize. So the original authors have to build the software and a business, while cannibals just build a business. Who is going to win? And your claim that QEMU is a small part of their business discounts the other FOSS code they build on. How much FOSS? I bet it's a lot.
        bcrl 3y ago
        You appear to be viewing software licensing as a zero sum game. How has Hetzner's use of open source virtualization software harmed the original author of QEMU, Fabrice Bellard? Back in the early days of QEMU, there were bugs. Lots of bugs, as hardware emulation is complicated. By releasing QEMU under the GPL, the project gained lots of users, and some of those users started fixing bugs. Because Fabrice chose to license QEMU under the GPL, users were forced to publish those fixes back to the community. Companies that decided to use and build on QEMU made it better. Parasites only take, while FOSS makes sure that users give back to the original project. Why is it that software developers, like Fabrice Bellard, choose to use FOSS licenses rather than a software available license? Do they receive zero benefit from choosing a FOSS license? No. They receive the benefit of other people using, and then improving the software they originally developed, which in turn feeds back into building a stronger community that supports the software. SAMS has barriers to entry that FOSS does not, and it fails to protect certain developer interests that FOSS licences protect. Those barriers to entry and rights matter to authors of FOSS. Developers who believe in FOSS will never adopt SAMS licenses, because SAMS doesn't protect the rights those authors value in the way that licenses like the GPL do. You're free to use whatever "software available" license you want, but people like me that value what FOSS gives back to us will never come around to your viewpoint because you do not value what we value.

That's a disingenuous argument when proprietary code such as Windows, AWS, and Google have just as much widespread acceptance, and they often did it by cannibalizing FOSS.

bcrl 3y ago

Last I checked, all those organizations were contributing many changes every release to the Linux kernel to improve performance, fix bugs and add features.

gavinhoward 3y ago
Because they have to for their own purposes. Even Google still "contributes" to Android. But they made it unusable without Play Services, which is entirely proprietary. There are ways to use FOSS to further monopoly and still look like the good guys by contributing. Doesn't make them any less the bad guys.
- bcrl 3y ago
  Software licensing has almost nothing to do with monopolies you mentioned. Google's monopoly comes from the position of power it has entrenched itself in by controlling search and using that control to make its advertising platform ubiquitous while buying up competitors in the online advertising space. In fact, I would argue that open source licenses makes it easier to compete against the cloud platforms you listed. Smaller companies like Hetzner can build their own private cloud platforms using virtualization software like QEMU (another very healthy project licensed under the GPL) and open source orchestration software. They can obtain and build on this software because it is open source and freely available (free as in both beer and money). "Source available" licenses aren't an improvement on this.
  - gavinhoward 3y ago
    Sure, they're not an "improvement" on this, but Hetzner becomes just another cannibal in that case.
    - bcrl 3y ago
      WTF? Hetzner has built a platform to deliver services to their customers. They have built a business that takes care of putting in physical infrastructure by constructing buildings to house servers, deliver network connectivity, cooling and power while financing that infrastructure and delivering service as a great monthly price. QEMU is but a small part of that, and I'd venture a guess that the cost of building the software to run their business is around the same order of magnitude as the physical infrastructure. That's hardly a parasitic business. Moreover, Google is the parasite in this case. Hetzner was founded in 1997 before Google even existed, running cloud-like business before Google launched their first service. Google isn't the reason software like QEMU exists, although they have certainly helped improve it. Not sure why you're choosing to be so ignorant of the history of how we got here today.
      - gavinhoward 3y ago
        Hetzner is a cannibal of QEMU,not Google. I do not dispute that Hetzner built that stuff, but in "The Economics of Programming Languages," Evan says that cannibals need to build a business too. What they don't need to build is the software they cannibalize. So the original authors have to build the software and a business, while cannibals just build a business. Who is going to win? And your claim that QEMU is a small part of their business discounts the other FOSS code they build on. How much FOSS? I bet it's a lot.
        bcrl 3y ago
        You appear to be viewing software licensing as a zero sum game. How has Hetzner's use of open source virtualization software harmed the original author of QEMU, Fabrice Bellard? Back in the early days of QEMU, there were bugs. Lots of bugs, as hardware emulation is complicated. By releasing QEMU under the GPL, the project gained lots of users, and some of those users started fixing bugs. Because Fabrice chose to license QEMU under the GPL, users were forced to publish those fixes back to the community. Companies that decided to use and build on QEMU made it better. Parasites only take, while FOSS makes sure that users give back to the original project. Why is it that software developers, like Fabrice Bellard, choose to use FOSS licenses rather than a software available license? Do they receive zero benefit from choosing a FOSS license? No. They receive the benefit of other people using, and then improving the software they originally developed, which in turn feeds back into building a stronger community that supports the software. SAMS has barriers to entry that FOSS does not, and it fails to protect certain developer interests that FOSS licences protect. Those barriers to entry and rights matter to authors of FOSS. Developers who believe in FOSS will never adopt SAMS licenses, because SAMS doesn't protect the rights those authors value in the way that licenses like the GPL do. You're free to use whatever "software available" license you want, but people like me that value what FOSS gives back to us will never come around to your viewpoint because you do not value what we value.