3 ms·
To sound like a broken record, what’s the alternative? To put into context: we have an enormously distorted ecosystem today compared to just a decade ago, consi
by klabb3 3y ago
To sound like a broken record, what’s the alternative? To put into context: we have an enormously distorted ecosystem today compared to just a decade ago, consisting of open source projects like Linux, Postgres, and all your programming languages. And then we have trillions of dollars going to like 3 mega-corps. They base their entire infrastructure on top of open source projects, and in aggregate give very little back relative to their size and revenue. The small-medium sized companies are often bought, or fail to compete because of lock-in and other competitive advantages in the cloud.
I don’t know about y'all but I want a healthy mix and I want a path for small companies to compete and grow, so we don’t get another AT&T technology stall. Although you can’t prove what would exist “otherwise”, I strongly suspect we’re already in an era of stifling innovation, especially the kind that has positive externalities, like interop and standardization.
So when you see BSL and friends, put it in this context. They most likely didn’t get it fully right, indeed. But is this because of ill intent? Or is it because it takes a lot of work and luck to strike the right balance?
I don’t know, but I feel strongly that we need solutions that lead to a healthy middle. Just imagine the best-of-worlds outcome, where OSS development is a viable way to make a living. Imagine working with an ecosystem of tools and libraries made by more people who currently don’t have the luxury of spending their spare time volunteering. Licensing is just one tool, but it’s an interesting one because it makes the tech giants uncomfortable. At the very least, it’s worthy of good-faith critique.
- yorwba 3y ago> what’s the alternative? A Slightly Less Strict Public License that would enable the developer of SLSPLed programs to accept contributions under the SLSPL without immediately being noncompliant themselves (something the SSPL is unsuited for due to the lack of SSPLed operating systems). I don't think the requirement to release supporting software as well is a bad idea, but when you make a new viral license, there needs to be some kind of upgrade path for existing open-source software. The AGPL has a special upgrade path from the GPL, and the SLSPL needs an upgrade path from the AGPL, the GPL and other licenses. So allow that supporting software for SLSPLed works is released under any OSI-approved license, not just the SLSPL. Then when you have a bog-standard Linux server with a mix of software using various licenses and you want to run an SLSPLed program on it, you can just publish the bog-standard software on your server under its existing licenses and you're done.
- hodgesrm 3y ago> And then we have trillions of dollars going to like 3 mega-corps. They base their entire infrastructure on top of open source projects, and in aggregate give very little back relative to their size and revenue. Which 3 mega-corps do you mean? Apple? Alphabet? Walmart? Your statement is true of virtually any large US company and many others as well. The problem is you won't be able to monetize open source software sufficiently from any of these if you are looking for the 100 to 1 shot that makes the VC funding model work. Therein lies the answer to your original question. It's time to get back to building open source products incrementally without huge injections of capital. There's plenty of room to build profitable businesses. They just won't make you or somebody's limited partners a billion dollars.