8 ms·

That is covered further down in the "Late stage" paragraph. Basically, you are already winning if the big ones try to emulate you, though some advanced plannin

• gadders 3y ago
  I would suggest (and I've run zero companies and I'm just going by what I read on here) that if you want to open source your project, from the start pick a license so that big cloud companies can't commercialise your product for free. People seem to get really salty when companies change their license further down the line to prevent this.
  • sneak 3y ago
    Those licenses aren’t open source. People get salty because those license changes are from open source to source available (like the BSL). Some of us (myself included) even consider licenses like the AGPL to be nonfree. Free software can be used for any purpose, including competing with the original authors. If you can’t do whatever you want with the software, it’s not free software. If you want to open source your software but you want to put restrictions on what people can do with it, then, well, you don’t want to open source your software (and IMO the free software community would be better off without your free software cosplay).
    • segfaltnh 3y ago
      But as a commercial consumer, I still value source available offerings quite a lot. I can debug my own issues with them, I can see how well they're built and I know thousands of eyes are looking at them. Depending on the software, I agree it's not as good for me as free software, but it's not worthless.
      • sneak 3y ago
        It’s not worthless, but I try to avoid supporting proprietary software companies. Being selfish isn’t a good look, especially when starting out as free software (Docker Desktop, I’m looking at you). I even strongly dislike actual free software releases with companies that have proprietary stuff alongside (so-called open core). It means that the people doing it don’t give a shit about software freedoms, otherwise they’d never consider releasing nonfree software. Mattermost is in this category (and further demonstrates their disdain for software freedoms by shipping nonconsensual spyware in their foss stuff and closing PRs that remove it). It’s really shady to position yourself as an open source company and then release any proprietary software.
        • duggan 3y ago
          Do you carry this philosophy through to your professional life? As in, do you only work for companies that produce open source software? If so it's an admirable stance, and I hope you're successful. I imagine it's tricky (or at least unstable) to earn ones living working only for entirely open source companies, but maybe there are more opportunities out there than I'd realized.
          • dartos 3y ago
            I can’t speak for everyone, but I’m at a point in my career where I can be a bit more picky about the jobs I take. I’m currently looking for a new SWE position and I prefer places that have active open source projects. I’d take less pay to work at somewhere that maintains and releases free software.
          • sneak 3y ago
            It’s not strictly absolute (I still use and even occasionally buy proprietary software) but yes, generally speaking, I either only work for companies that release free software, or strongly advocate for my clients to build and release only free software. I’ve convinced (or been part of the process that convinced) several projects to release free software that otherwise would not, including some famous ones that have been on the frontpage of HN recently. I am personally responsible for at least 3-4 startups never making/releasing anything but open source stuff. I advocate for the basic idea of software freedom in all contexts. Usually “business guys” try to interfere, but it’s almost always from the misguided idea that the code is somehow valuable. People get this weird idea that their source is worth money (it never is). Most companies are valuable because of their ability to execute, not their code (which is rarely reusable outside their org anyway, and even if it is, not in their market). Think about it: if your code were valuable, how is it that a few people were able to make it from scratch in a few months? It’s obviously your staff who are valuable, not the code (which someone else could also make from scratch for low cost if they needed to, just like you did). It’s the same misguided emotion that makes people think startup ideas are inherently valuable. It’s the ability to execute, not your so-called “intellectual property” that is where the value is.
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • actionfromafar 3y ago
      To me AGPL is still very open, but it sure limits stuff. Gotta be even more careful with it in an enterprise setting than GPL. Can deploy it internally, but must be internally and it’s a constant risk. I haven’t found a reason to deploy one yet. One use case I have seen is to have some sort of commercial/AGPL double distribution, perhaps with the AGPL release lagging behind.
      • mcny 3y ago
        Sorry, so I must have misunderstood AGPL then? Assuming a well written software, your configuration values can still be secret, right? As long as you give all your users the source code you got and the changes you made to the code (not the configuration), you should be ok? It is crazy to expect someone to ask for things like your database password or your exact configuration like sync intervals.
        • actionfromafar 3y ago
          No you are right. I just meant that if you deploy a GPL service internally and the service somehow makes its way outside the organization, you don’t have to distribute the source code or anything. But with AGPL, you now have to. Ensuring compliance is costlier.
          • mcny 3y ago
            Why is compliance costlier? There are companies that don't comply with GPLv2 for months and there is no cost as far as I can tell previously on HN, https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31713525 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31713525
            • actionfromafar 3y ago
              Compliance is costlier if you actually spend resources trying to comply. What you are referring to is the cost of non-compliance. Maybe the joke swoshed by me. :)
    • reaperman 3y ago
      I'm confused how someone would generally consider the AGPL to be non-free, but still perceive the GPL as a free license. In either case you don't have to pay for the software, can modify it however you'd like, and run it wherever you want. You just have to share the modified source code.
      • wongarsu 3y ago
        If anything, the AGPL is the modern incarnation of the ideals of the GPL. If SaaS business had been a big thing in 1989 I'm sure the original GPL would have contained wording similar to the AGPL. It's just that back then nobody though of people hosting software as a threat to the free flow of software improvements.
        • dartos 3y ago
          This entirely
        • lupire 3y ago
          Not clear. Stallman already carved out exceptions for "appliances" that had computer chips, like microwaves. Stalllman wanted is own general purpose computer to be libre, not freedom to control other people computers (Cloud).
          • reaperman 3y ago
            So, I think yours is a reasonable position. I hear it and integrate it into my thinking. I have two thoughts on what you bring up, the first is a story I remember about Stallman being really frustrated with firmware on a printer (not drivers on a “general computing” device). I think reading this story[0] should be reasonably self-explanatory and not require additional exposition or warrant in this HN thread. My other thought is that increasingly, our “general computing” applications are moving to web apps / cloud apps, and not stored on our devices. So while you may be correct about RMS, and maybe he wouldn’t have cared today about the concerns AGPL addresses, I personally wonder that he would, and think its at least reasonable for many people to generalize his FSF philosophy to cover general computing experiences that aren’t hosted locally but are still part of the primary computing interface that we use to interact with our current general computing devices. 0: https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201d-redux-a-testimonial-about-the-injustice-of-proprietary-firmware https://www.fsf.org/blogs/community/201cthe-printer-story201...
    • RobotToaster 3y ago
      > Some of us (myself included) even consider licenses like the AGPL to be nonfree. I was with you up until this point.
    • wongarsu 3y ago
      As a private person and startup founder the things I value about open source from a practical perspective are - being able to just read the source to figure out what's going on - being able to fix bugs - being able to add features I need - being able to upstream those changes so others can profit and help maintain them - being able to self-host the software Open Source ticks all those boxes, whether it's on the "laissez-faire" end of the spectrum (BSD) or the "Stallman" side of the spectrum (AGPL). (though the more "Stallman" a license is the fewer situations where I can use it). But the BSL also ticks all those boxes. I get it's not as ideologically pure, but it still meets most of the ideals of the original open source/libre software movements.
      • candiddevmike 3y ago
        BSL doesn't necessarily allow you to self host. Without additional grants, it doesn't allow production usage until the license converts.
        • wongarsu 3y ago
          If I make a paid twitter clone using a BSL-licensed database under the hood, I'm allowed to self-host the database for this purpose, in both production and dev environments. What the BSL prevents me from doing is offering paid hosting for others, or offering a product that competes with it (e.g. if postgres would be BSL, supabase couldn't use postgres under the hood since the products kind of compete with each other).
          • candiddevmike 3y ago
            You can't use BSL software in production without an additional usage grant: https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-adopting/ https://mariadb.com/bsl-faq-adopting/
            • sofixa 3y ago
              In practice are there any BSL adopters that don't give a usage grant for production use? All those I've encountered only forbid stuff like hosting to compete with the original software creator, not actually using it in production.
    • gadders 3y ago
      I get your philosophical point point and I'm not enough up on various licenses to debate the AGPL. I'm coming more from a "build a company and feed your family" point of view but everyone has to balance their own priorities/ethical positions. I guess at least if the license is set at the outset people can choose to engage or not, rather than having what they may percieve as a "rug pull".
    • jraph 3y ago
      > Some of us (myself included) even consider licenses like the AGPL to be nonfree Which definition of free do you use? You may have valid criticism against AGPL but non-free isn't one. It's free according to the free software definitions and the open source definition. It's recognized as free by the two organisms providing relevant definition (OSI and GNU) and by all the relevant actors, including Linux distributions and even big proprietary companies (including GitHub). I think you are misunderstanding the meaning of "for any purpose". It only applies to what you do with it when you run it. It does not mean you can do anything you want with the source code. It is very important to understand this aspect correctly when developing software or for a free software / open source enthusiast.
    • CuriousCosmic 3y ago
      AGPL is absolutely free software as long as the GPL is considered free software and should not be put into comparison with licenses like the BSL. The only real limitation on the AGPL compared to the GPL is section 13 which states that you need to make the sources for said AGPL program available to any user who interacts with it. Otherwise the license is practically identical. Otherwise the license is essentially identical to the GPL. If you diff the licenses, you'll see that other than section 13 and s/GPL/AGPL/g, the actual license terms are identical (if you diff sections 0-12, only the addition of the word Affero to the first line of section 0 will come up). The preamble and afterwords are different but they aren't actually part of the license (only the sections between the lines `TERMS AND CONDITIONS` and `END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS`). As for the differences in those sections, the preamble provides context for why the license exists compared to the GPL and the afterwords provide a recommendation as to how to provide source access. So in effect the AGPL is identical to the GPL with the addition of requiring that you make sources available to any user "interacting with it remotely over a computer network". Contrary to popular belief this doesn't mean you need to provide sources for everything that touches it over a network, just that anybody/anything that interacts with it over a network be granted access to the AGPL source (and corresponding sources). The requirement for what is considered part of corresponding sources is exactly identical. That requirement: > The "Corresponding Source" for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities. However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work. For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work. TLDR: The only practical change in the licenses for a piece of hosted software is that under the GPL the user is the server operator/host and under the AGPL the user is the actual user/client. Whether a given piece of software gets "contaminated" by a AGPL work is no different than if said AGPL work was licensed under the GPL instead.
    • patrickaljord 3y ago
      > Free software can be used for any purpose, including competing with the original authors. If you can’t do whatever you want with the software, it’s not free software. That's like saying a free society can only be free when individuals are free to do anything they want including harming/limiting freedoms of other individuals. Well, no, most free society limits your freedom to harm other people or bans you from limiting other people's freedom. The AGPL prohibits you from limiting other people's freedom.
  • RobotToaster 3y ago
    I honestly don't get why more people don't just use the AGPL. Mastodon et al prove it works.
    • Kalium 3y ago
      I would hesitate to characterize a service running on grants and donations as a good model for your typical startup to imitate.
      • forgotmypw17 3y ago
        Why not? It is one of the most sustainable models if you want to maintain quality and avoid enshittification.
        • Kalium 3y ago
          The VC-oriented financial model (that is, your typical startup) is fundamentally incompatible with Mastodon's non-profit financial model. As a result, very different choices around licensing, funding, and business structure are good fits. Each tool has its use and serves its specific purpose. What works for Mastodon might not work for others trying to advance different goals.
          • mcny 3y ago
            Nobody should take VC money unless they absolutely have no other option.
        • pc86 3y ago
          The primary goal of a startup is to make money through acquisition or IPO, and the primary goal of business more generally is to make money selling a good or service. Grants and donations don't really fit into that, and isn't the topic of this whether or not to open source the code of a commercial venture?
    • j1elo 3y ago
      Well, Mongo decided it doesn't really work. At least not for them, anyway. This is one of the most notorious case of relicensing from Open Source to source available cases, so it might be interesting for you to look into the reasons (it happened around 2018). In the end, the AGPL is huge but not a silver bullet.
  • EvanAnderson 3y ago
    > People seem to get really salty when companies change their license further down the line to prevent this. I think a lot of people get salty when a company changes their license to a source available license but still try to call it open source and free ride on the goodwill that open source software engenders. Don't call a license open source if it isn't and reasonable people will be fine with it.
    • gadders 3y ago
      I did say pick a license from the start. I'm not criticising people for having different philosophical positions on licensing.
      • EvanAnderson 3y ago
        I was addressing the point about the "saltiness" when licenses change. I wholeheartedly agree that making a thoughtful choice the company can live with from the start is the best policy.
• jackbravo 3y ago
  I agree that when a big cloud company tries to emulate you, you are already winning on a normal company. But maybe not for a venture-backed/big-exit-strategy startup. And probably, those early investors are the ones recommending against fully open-source business models.