5 ms·

Will no one think of Amazon's profit margins? We need new licenses that let developers get more of the pie because no one is benefiting from the GPL in the age

by ctrw 3y ago

Will no one think of Amazon's profit margins? We need new licenses that let developers get more of the pie because no one is benefiting from the GPL in the age of cloud computing. Who cares that Linux is open source when I'm locked in aws and can never leave? What does it matter to users when their data is stolen to train Ai models and they don't even know what's in it?

rglullis 3y ago
> We need new licenses that let developers get more of the pie because no one is benefiting from the GPL in the age of cloud computing. Try the AGPL.
- ctrw 3y ago
  A license for the internet of the 90s, not the one we have today.
  - bberenberg 3y ago
    Can you elaborate on this? I have seen a fair amount of criticism of AGPL on here recently and am trying to understand the perspective.
  - madeofpalk 3y ago
    What's wrong with AGPL? Why is it not suitable for the "internet of today"?
    - throwaway48476 3y ago
      It's not viral enough. It's easy for AWS to host a version of an AGPL project and just point to the source code. Cloud hosted instances are the primary business models for a lot of projects. The solution is to add a requirement that any platform the software is hosted on also has to be open source.
      - rglullis 3y ago
        > Cloud hosted instances are the primary business models for a lot of projects. No one is entitled to their business models, no matter how noble their goals. It's quite simple: if you believe in the ethos of Free Software, you need to be prepared to the possibility of other people taking your work, doing modifications and even profiting from it. That is the whole point. If you don't want "evil corporations" from taking your code, then keep it closed and say it so. But don't be dishonest with others when you say that you "support open source" while not ready to walk the walk.
        jen20 3y ago
        SSPL achieves your goal far better than AGPL, as already enumerated in this thread.
        thejohnconway 3y ago
        People are struggling with what I think of as the pyrrhic victory of open source software. Vast swathes of computing is done with OSS, yet there is very little software freedom for actual people, because it’s all running in megacorps data centres with all the data locked away. Essentially, the intention of copyleft to increase software freedom, which is the overall mission, has foundered. It is didn’t work and need revising. Smaller companies are an ally of convenience here.
        rglullis 3y ago
        No, the problem is that people conflating "free as in speech" with "free as in beer". Data is locked in megacorps because people are giving away their freedoms in exchange of convenience. > the overall mission, has foundered. Absolutely not. I've never had so much freedom on how to do computing.
        thejohnconway 3y ago
        I don't think the intention of OSS was to make computing more free for a tiny elite who are will to live with quite a lot of inconvenience. Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly don't think the average computer user is more free in their software use than they were, say, 10 years ago. Or 20.
- anonymous_i 3y ago
  Stupid ask: Can't developers sue this company for false advertising ? This started off as one thing and ended up being something else. They probably at any point did not hint about changing license in the future, just guessing. For any open projects , couldn't dev. request for keeping the license as is or Free(or whatever relevant) before letting their code merged. This may sound illogical to someone who is a domain expert, but this is just a dumb question from someone who has almost 0 clue on this topic.
  - mpweiher 3y ago
    > Can't developers sue this company for false advertising ? No. Questions for you: 1. What was advertised? 2. By who? 3. Where?
    - anonymous_i 3y ago
      Okay developers can't do anything now. Sue is probably not the better description of the thoughts I had. Let's say, can't the developers do anything in an act of retaliation? Given that so much work came from the community. > ... advertised Yeah. Wrong choice of word. Using one kind of license to get the attention of public is in spirit akin to advertising(that was the line of thought I had). I am not doubling down on stupified things I said, I am tryina explain what I thought. So... if I can re-ask the question , I take my dumb-comment yesterday back and ask it like this : can't the community do in act of retaliation against these acts ? can't we mandate community approval for license updates when the community is also participating in contribution and popularizing its usage I do not have anything against Redis. What is going to happen to the future of FOSS and software in general , if once open(open source and Libre) projects end up walled or proprietary etc.
- sebstefan 3y ago
  Redis picked SSPL instead and cited those reasons for why "It is based on the AGPL, with a modified Section 13 that requires that those making SSPL-licensed software available to third-parties (modified or not) as part of a “service” must release the source code for the entirety of the service, including without limitation all “management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available”, under the SSPL. MongoDB is the publisher of this license. They have a FAQ about the license https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/server-side-public-license/faq https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/server-side-public-l..."

by ctrw 3y ago

rglullis 3y ago

> We need new licenses that let developers get more of the pie because no one is benefiting from the GPL in the age of cloud computing. Try the AGPL.

ctrw 3y ago
A license for the internet of the 90s, not the one we have today.
- bberenberg 3y ago
  Can you elaborate on this? I have seen a fair amount of criticism of AGPL on here recently and am trying to understand the perspective.
- madeofpalk 3y ago
  What's wrong with AGPL? Why is it not suitable for the "internet of today"?
  - throwaway48476 3y ago
    It's not viral enough. It's easy for AWS to host a version of an AGPL project and just point to the source code. Cloud hosted instances are the primary business models for a lot of projects. The solution is to add a requirement that any platform the software is hosted on also has to be open source.
    - rglullis 3y ago
      > Cloud hosted instances are the primary business models for a lot of projects. No one is entitled to their business models, no matter how noble their goals. It's quite simple: if you believe in the ethos of Free Software, you need to be prepared to the possibility of other people taking your work, doing modifications and even profiting from it. That is the whole point. If you don't want "evil corporations" from taking your code, then keep it closed and say it so. But don't be dishonest with others when you say that you "support open source" while not ready to walk the walk.
      - jen20 3y ago
        SSPL achieves your goal far better than AGPL, as already enumerated in this thread.
      - thejohnconway 3y ago
        People are struggling with what I think of as the pyrrhic victory of open source software. Vast swathes of computing is done with OSS, yet there is very little software freedom for actual people, because it’s all running in megacorps data centres with all the data locked away. Essentially, the intention of copyleft to increase software freedom, which is the overall mission, has foundered. It is didn’t work and need revising. Smaller companies are an ally of convenience here.
        rglullis 3y ago
        No, the problem is that people conflating "free as in speech" with "free as in beer". Data is locked in megacorps because people are giving away their freedoms in exchange of convenience. > the overall mission, has foundered. Absolutely not. I've never had so much freedom on how to do computing.
        thejohnconway 3y ago
        I don't think the intention of OSS was to make computing more free for a tiny elite who are will to live with quite a lot of inconvenience. Maybe I'm wrong. I certainly don't think the average computer user is more free in their software use than they were, say, 10 years ago. Or 20.
anonymous_i 3y ago
Stupid ask: Can't developers sue this company for false advertising ? This started off as one thing and ended up being something else. They probably at any point did not hint about changing license in the future, just guessing. For any open projects , couldn't dev. request for keeping the license as is or Free(or whatever relevant) before letting their code merged. This may sound illogical to someone who is a domain expert, but this is just a dumb question from someone who has almost 0 clue on this topic.
- mpweiher 3y ago
  > Can't developers sue this company for false advertising ? No. Questions for you: 1. What was advertised? 2. By who? 3. Where?
  - anonymous_i 3y ago
    Okay developers can't do anything now. Sue is probably not the better description of the thoughts I had. Let's say, can't the developers do anything in an act of retaliation? Given that so much work came from the community. > ... advertised Yeah. Wrong choice of word. Using one kind of license to get the attention of public is in spirit akin to advertising(that was the line of thought I had). I am not doubling down on stupified things I said, I am tryina explain what I thought. So... if I can re-ask the question , I take my dumb-comment yesterday back and ask it like this : can't the community do in act of retaliation against these acts ? can't we mandate community approval for license updates when the community is also participating in contribution and popularizing its usage I do not have anything against Redis. What is going to happen to the future of FOSS and software in general , if once open(open source and Libre) projects end up walled or proprietary etc.
sebstefan 3y ago
Redis picked SSPL instead and cited those reasons for why "It is based on the AGPL, with a modified Section 13 that requires that those making SSPL-licensed software available to third-parties (modified or not) as part of a “service” must release the source code for the entirety of the service, including without limitation all “management software, user interfaces, application program interfaces, automation software, monitoring software, backup software, storage software and hosting software, all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available”, under the SSPL. MongoDB is the publisher of this license. They have a FAQ about the license https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/server-side-public-license/faq https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/server-side-public-l..."