4 ms·

Especially ironic, given that Oracle is one of the nastiest and most aggressive companies at enforcing license terms.

by freedomben 2y ago

Timshel 2y ago
In a way they know the worst that can happen :D
- SteveNuts 2y ago
  Yeah this is absolutely projection on Oracle's part
globular-toast 2y ago
There is no contradiction here. It's exceedingly simple: companies will take as much as they can and give as little as they can. That's why it's important to raise the bar on what they have to give and reject all permissive (non-copyleft) free software licences.
- sneak 2y ago
  Copyleft is not required, free software is a gift freely given. Even public domain is ok (weird places like Germany that don’t have public domain notwithstanding). What must be rejected is nonfree licenses like the BSL.
  - globular-toast 2y ago
    > Copyleft is not required Yes it is. Because companies (like Oracle) will take as much as they can and give as little as they can. > free software is a gift freely given It's a gift to the public, not to individuals and companies (like Oracle). > Even public domain is ok Even worse because that expressly allows companies (like Oracle) to take everything and give nothing.
    - therealpygon 2y ago
      All of which is well understood by anyone who release permissively licensed software? If they didn’t accept that, they could have used a non-commercial license. If they expected contributions they could have sold a paid product. I’d suggest not using others hard work as the basis for your argument. If it was your work and you regret it, say that. If you don’t like oracle, say that. Otherwise, people who contribute to FOSS software do so knowingly, yet you are trying to inject your own opinions of “public” vs whomever, as though you know better than those contributors own feelings and intentions.
    - lolinder 2y ago
      > Because companies (like Oracle) will take as much as they can and give as little as they can. Which in the case of free software is a completely neutral fact that causes exactly zero negative impact to the project. You're trying to apply principles of scarcity to a product category that has no scarcity—replicating the bits to serve Oracle doesn't cost a maintainer anything at all. They can prefer not to let Oracle use their otherwise-freely-provided software, but that's not a position that's as easy to get sympathy for as pretending there's harm done.
    - bigstrat2003 2y ago
      > Yes it is. Because companies (like Oracle) will take as much as they can and give as little as they can. Yes, they will. So? Nobody is actually harmed by this. The software is still perfectly available for the public to make use of. > It's a gift to the public, not to individuals and companies (like Oracle). The public is not some separate entity from individuals or companies. It's simply the collective of all individuals and companies. So yes, when you gift something to the public it's a gift to Oracle as well. It's not exclusively to them, but they are a part.
  - Pet_Ant 2y ago
    BSL is preferrable to completely closed because at least researchers can look at it now and it will eventually transition to open source. If Windows XP was BSL licensed then Wine would have a lot less trouble now.
    - kees99 2y ago
      Citation is sorely needed for both "transition" and "BSL XP be good for wine" claims above. Specifically, supposed inevitability of BSL->OSI transition is dubious. If anything, there are examples of the opposite - terraform itself being prime one.
      - Pet_Ant 2y ago
        > Citation is sorely needed for both "transition" Sure! [1] > The Business Source License requires the work to be relicensed to a "Change License" at the "Change Date". The "Change License" must be a "license which is compatible with GPL version 2.0 or later". The Change Date must be four years or sooner from the publication date of the work being licensed So the business source license is less "non-OSI" and more "not currently non-OSI, but eventually and irrevocable at future date". In the case of Terraform it says [2]: >Change Date: Four years from the date the Licensed Work is published. >Change License: MPL 2.0 So is this ideal? No. But it's better than OpenVMS screwing over historians and hobbyists [3] decades after it's relevancy has expired.[6] It's also better than SSPL [4] which has no such transition and stays permanently non-OSI [5]. > "BSL XP be good for wine" claims above. Well Wine uses the LGPL, and Windows XP was released in 2001 so even if they set the expiry 20 years after release, it'd be GPL'd by now. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License#Terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License#Terms [2] https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/blob/main/LICENSE [3] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/09/vsi_prunes_hobbyist_prog/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/09/vsi_prunes_hobbyist_p... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License [5] https://web.archive.org/web/20230411163802/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-February/003977.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230411163802/https://lists.ope... [6] https://www.theregister.com/2013/06/10/openvms_death_notice/ https://www.theregister.com/2013/06/10/openvms_death_notice/
- hacktivity 2y ago
  [dead]
totaldude87 2y ago
At oracle- Hey, what if they do - what we do to other companies ... to us ... presses a red button
geodel 2y ago
Thats the way world works. Here in this forum so many software people asking for best possible salaries and perks, and when it comes paying a bit to good productivity software same developers are always full of excuses like. 1) Oh, I prefer open source alternative for ideological reason. 2) This software is not really worth that much. 3) Hectoring developers every single time in providing why their software should be preferred over unpaid alternatives. 4) Blaming companies that they are bigger users so they should pay not me. If these entitled developers who deserve all the money but no one deserve their money just shut the fuck up every once in a while it will be a good thing.
- talldayo 2y ago
  I mean, sometimes the entitled developers are right and predict that the monetization of a software product will lead to it's inevitable demise. More often than not that's how these sorts of projects end up. Linux as a whole exists because developers said "fuck AT&T, we're taking this train off the rails" and nobody ever looked back since.
  - scarface_74 2y ago
    And the majority of code in Linux is created by corporate employees getting paid to make changes. Those companies are merely helping to “commoditize their complements”
    - talldayo 2y ago
      That's not really a problem as long as the source license stays the same. If Amazon or Microsoft need a feature in the kernel, nobody tends to care as long as it's GPL. > Those companies are merely helping to “commoditize their complements” That's how they justify it internally, yeah. From an administrative standpoint it's pretty obvious that they all choose Linux because it's easier than retrofitting proprietary UNIX for modern software. But indeed, they market it as goodwill and complimentary development.
      - 2y ago

Especially ironic, given that Oracle is one of the nastiest and most aggressive companies at enforcing license terms.

Timshel 2y ago

In a way they know the worst that can happen :D

SteveNuts 2y ago
Yeah this is absolutely projection on Oracle's part

globular-toast 2y ago

There is no contradiction here. It's exceedingly simple: companies will take as much as they can and give as little as they can. That's why it's important to raise the bar on what they have to give and reject all permissive (non-copyleft) free software licences.

sneak 2y ago
Copyleft is not required, free software is a gift freely given. Even public domain is ok (weird places like Germany that don’t have public domain notwithstanding). What must be rejected is nonfree licenses like the BSL.
- globular-toast 2y ago
  > Copyleft is not required Yes it is. Because companies (like Oracle) will take as much as they can and give as little as they can. > free software is a gift freely given It's a gift to the public, not to individuals and companies (like Oracle). > Even public domain is ok Even worse because that expressly allows companies (like Oracle) to take everything and give nothing.
  - therealpygon 2y ago
    All of which is well understood by anyone who release permissively licensed software? If they didn’t accept that, they could have used a non-commercial license. If they expected contributions they could have sold a paid product. I’d suggest not using others hard work as the basis for your argument. If it was your work and you regret it, say that. If you don’t like oracle, say that. Otherwise, people who contribute to FOSS software do so knowingly, yet you are trying to inject your own opinions of “public” vs whomever, as though you know better than those contributors own feelings and intentions.
  - lolinder 2y ago
    > Because companies (like Oracle) will take as much as they can and give as little as they can. Which in the case of free software is a completely neutral fact that causes exactly zero negative impact to the project. You're trying to apply principles of scarcity to a product category that has no scarcity—replicating the bits to serve Oracle doesn't cost a maintainer anything at all. They can prefer not to let Oracle use their otherwise-freely-provided software, but that's not a position that's as easy to get sympathy for as pretending there's harm done.
  - bigstrat2003 2y ago
    > Yes it is. Because companies (like Oracle) will take as much as they can and give as little as they can. Yes, they will. So? Nobody is actually harmed by this. The software is still perfectly available for the public to make use of. > It's a gift to the public, not to individuals and companies (like Oracle). The public is not some separate entity from individuals or companies. It's simply the collective of all individuals and companies. So yes, when you gift something to the public it's a gift to Oracle as well. It's not exclusively to them, but they are a part.
- Pet_Ant 2y ago
  BSL is preferrable to completely closed because at least researchers can look at it now and it will eventually transition to open source. If Windows XP was BSL licensed then Wine would have a lot less trouble now.
  - kees99 2y ago
    Citation is sorely needed for both "transition" and "BSL XP be good for wine" claims above. Specifically, supposed inevitability of BSL->OSI transition is dubious. If anything, there are examples of the opposite - terraform itself being prime one.
    - Pet_Ant 2y ago
      > Citation is sorely needed for both "transition" Sure! [1] > The Business Source License requires the work to be relicensed to a "Change License" at the "Change Date". The "Change License" must be a "license which is compatible with GPL version 2.0 or later". The Change Date must be four years or sooner from the publication date of the work being licensed So the business source license is less "non-OSI" and more "not currently non-OSI, but eventually and irrevocable at future date". In the case of Terraform it says [2]: >Change Date: Four years from the date the Licensed Work is published. >Change License: MPL 2.0 So is this ideal? No. But it's better than OpenVMS screwing over historians and hobbyists [3] decades after it's relevancy has expired.[6] It's also better than SSPL [4] which has no such transition and stays permanently non-OSI [5]. > "BSL XP be good for wine" claims above. Well Wine uses the LGPL, and Windows XP was released in 2001 so even if they set the expiry 20 years after release, it'd be GPL'd by now. --- [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License#Terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Source_License#Terms [2] https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/blob/main/LICENSE https://github.com/hashicorp/terraform/blob/main/LICENSE [3] https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/09/vsi_prunes_hobbyist_prog/ https://www.theregister.com/2024/04/09/vsi_prunes_hobbyist_p... [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License [5] https://web.archive.org/web/20230411163802/https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2019-February/003977.html https://web.archive.org/web/20230411163802/https://lists.ope... [6] https://www.theregister.com/2013/06/10/openvms_death_notice/ https://www.theregister.com/2013/06/10/openvms_death_notice/
hacktivity 2y ago
[dead]

totaldude87 2y ago

At oracle- Hey, what if they do - what we do to other companies ... to us ... presses a red button

geodel 2y ago

Thats the way world works. Here in this forum so many software people asking for best possible salaries and perks, and when it comes paying a bit to good productivity software same developers are always full of excuses like. 1) Oh, I prefer open source alternative for ideological reason. 2) This software is not really worth that much. 3) Hectoring developers every single time in providing why their software should be preferred over unpaid alternatives. 4) Blaming companies that they are bigger users so they should pay not me. If these entitled developers who deserve all the money but no one deserve their money just shut the fuck up every once in a while it will be a good thing.

talldayo 2y ago
I mean, sometimes the entitled developers are right and predict that the monetization of a software product will lead to it's inevitable demise. More often than not that's how these sorts of projects end up. Linux as a whole exists because developers said "fuck AT&T, we're taking this train off the rails" and nobody ever looked back since.
- scarface_74 2y ago
  And the majority of code in Linux is created by corporate employees getting paid to make changes. Those companies are merely helping to “commoditize their complements”
  - talldayo 2y ago
    That's not really a problem as long as the source license stays the same. If Amazon or Microsoft need a feature in the kernel, nobody tends to care as long as it's GPL. > Those companies are merely helping to “commoditize their complements” That's how they justify it internally, yeah. From an administrative standpoint it's pretty obvious that they all choose Linux because it's easier than retrofitting proprietary UNIX for modern software. But indeed, they market it as goodwill and complimentary development.
    - 2y ago