6 ms·

I'm really glad that they've made a conscious effort to be transparent in the fact that this is not open source. That said, I'm less sure how I feel about the m

I'm really glad that they've made a conscious effort to be transparent in the fact that this is not open source. That said, I'm less sure how I feel about the movement as a whole. I admire the desire to make source code transparently available, and let people use it for free, but I think strict open source is the best net good for the world we live in. I can run apps on Linux in any cloud I want to because every cloud is free to run it. And so I benefit from getting to choose among competitors (including self hosting) where that doesn't exist in a world where competition is forbidden. It's also ironic to me that this software is being built on top of git, and thus is a business model entirely dependent upon FOSS, while wanting to differentiate and build a business on top of it with a moat but still sharing the code in a way that protects them. It just seems like an uncomfortable position straddling the fence between two paradigms. Maybe I'm privileged in the fact that I've always lived comfortably enough in my career to feel like I can write and release OSS under the most permissive terms (whether it's used or not). But that feels like the best way to give back to the movement that effectively led me into this career for free, and lets me pick from offerings that are forced to differentiate on price or other features rather than whether they can license the software.

paxys 2y ago
The contributor side of it is important as well. If I'm using an open source product, I'm generally very happy to spend long hours debugging edge cases, writing detailed bug reports, pushing fixes, suggesting and adding enhancements and generally being involved in the community, knowing that I'm doing my share and improving the experience for everyone. Nowadays it is increasingly likely that my effort is eventually going to be relicensed and repackaged into non-free software without my consent, and no one (not even me myself) will be allowed to continue to benefit from my work. IMO the issue really lies with the VC funding model. Every single one of these projects that has done a license bait and switch has taken outside funding, and these investors want to see an exponential return, which simply cannot be attained by keeping the software free. Stewardship by a reputed open source foundation is the only possible future for such projects if they want to actually stay open and do right by their community.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  > Nowadays it is increasingly likely that my effort is eventually going to be relicensed and repackaged into non-free software without my consent, and no one (not even me myself) will be allowed to continue to benefit from my work. The curious thing (and developers have the right) is that permissive licenses, like MIT, are growing every year while copyleft licenses like the GPL are decreasing in popularity. According to a loose Statista graph, ~41% of OSS projects used permissive licenses in 2012. By 2021, it was ~78%. The Register has also noted this phenomenon. Copyleft is completely out of fashion. https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/17/mit_apache_versus_gpl/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/17/mit_apache_versus_gpl... Personally, if I was making a solo OSS project, I completely get it. If Google wants to use it, even if they never gave back, I would be honored and quite possibly get a job from that. Using GPL just means my software will only be useful to GPL-loving compatriots, which is to say, almost nowhere outside the Linux communities. It's also not fair when my company (like most companies) benefitted immensely from various bits of MIT/Apache licensed software, so to give back to the community as a whole with the GPL feels unfair.
  - WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
    > The curious thing (and developers have the right) is that permissive licenses, like MIT, are growing every year while copyleft licenses like the GPL are decreasing in popularity. Not very surprising given the sizeable army of all the “developer evangelists”, “developer advocates”, and “devrel people” who have been quite vocal on the gpl-bad-mit-good stance, all the while being on Big Tech’s dime, one way or another. Why would Big Tech want to promote this view so much? Commoditize your complement, that’s why.
- danenania 2y ago
  Open core is a tried and true business model. It’s essentially just freemium, which businesses have done forever. If a healthy proprietary product can be built on the open source base, that’s a win-win. The company gets revenue and a sustainable business; the community gets free open source software with a highly motivated steward. There’s no reason to relicense if it works. Things can go wrong in various ways of course, and drawing the line in the right place is a challenge, but that doesn’t mean that every VC-backed open core product is doomed to relicense. There are many examples of it working out well for both the company and community.
layer8 2y ago
> It's also ironic to me that this software is being built on top of git, and thus is a business model entirely dependent upon FOSS, while wanting to differentiate and build a business on top of it with a moat but still sharing the code in a way that protects them To be fair (no pun intended), they could build it on top of two-year-old Git just the same. I rather fear that two years of DOSP are too short to be attractive for many companies that might otherwise adopt that license model.
- gjsman-1000 2y ago
  This will probably be the biggest weakness with the FSL. Some companies will say, "it's FSL 1.1, but three years." Or, "it's FSL 1.1, but four years." Or, "it's FSL 1.1, but only if we go bankrupt." And on and on.
  - zeeg 2y ago
    FSL is strict on two years. We certainly would not promote a version that’s variable. You could make one, but it’s our job as a community to say “no!”
- ezekg 2y ago
  When we really think about it, what's the real fear behind 2-year vs 4-year DOSP? Is it that users will choose the 2-year OSS version over the latest version, or that it encourages more viable competition? The former sounds like a value problem, and the latter sounds like an adoption problem, and those share a root problem. The BUSL with a 4-year delay has shown to work, so why wouldn't the FSL with a 2-year delay also work? I personally feel like 2 years is a good enough head start i.r.t. competition, while providing users with more viable options to recover a lost or sunken ship.
  - layer8 2y ago
    The longer a product/service exists, the easier it is to compete with it based on the version two years prior, in particular if the source of the current version is also available (even if you can’t use it verbatim — but you can build your own variant of newer features, possibly even with a fully compatible API).
solidsnack9000 2y ago
Many business models are entirely dependent on FOSS. It's not really an argument either way. If it weren't for those businesses, a lot of FOSS work would not happen...
godelski 2y ago
> I think strict open source is the best net good for the world we live in. I agree BUT we've also seen through decades that this model is not working. While there are plenty of notable exceptions, it is difficult to make a living developing code transparently and making it available to the public. We've seen that large companies will build around these tools and pressure developers but not return compensation. We've seen that many of these projects become integral in our infrastructure (though often hidden several layers deep). We've seen that code quality is degraded as things are rushed and the reality is only a few people work on these projects. We've simply learned that we can't really rely on donations and corporations will find it difficult to justify funding even if they highly depend on it (even when it is in their best interest). Because charity is "charity". The real best thing would be to ensure we have an economy where we compensate people for work that others find beneficial. As in, work is work. If you're developing tools that others are using and monetarily benefiting from, you should be compensated for that work. The world I want to see is where you can make a living as a full time open source dev. And not just for gigantic projects that are easily recognizable as critical, but anything that is critical. Anything that is useful. I really want to live in that OSS world, but I think we should also have a serious conversation about the issues we face. That we need to question if the incentives align like we think they align. And consider time, as they might have in the past but no longer do. I'll ask a proxy question: Could you research and invent a (Star Trek style) replicator in this environment? Replace with some other device if you will, but such a thing like this would upend many businesses and likely the cannibalize itself. But such a tool would fundamentally change peoples lives for the better, making post scarcity not only possible, but trivial (there are other easier ways to get post scarcity). Fwiw, when I ask the economists[0] they give a two letter answer. It is undeniable that the way we've done things has been successful. But past performance is no guarantee of future performance. The burden of advancement is that you have to get more nuanced over time. Essentially, we can do well with a low order approximation, but that only goes so far. As you progress, you need to account for more and more higher order terms. So the question is if we've advanced enough where these matter. [0] I only explain what the device does. Having the ability to assemble things from the atomic level. Like a 3d printer but for atoms. They are smart enough to figure out the rest and I do confirm this. (My partner is an economist, so I pester them about things like this and they do others in reverse. It's good fun)
m463 2y ago
> strict open source is the best RMS gets a lot of flack, but he's pretty good about defining terms like this precisely. Free software has no restrictions on USE, the restrictions are on redistribution. Open source is ambiguous can mean all the way from "you can see the source" to being public domain. Fair source is not free software. They are restricting how it is used.
- cobbal 2y ago
  Probably the widest accepted definition of the term open source is https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - m463 2y ago
    https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
hn_throwaway_99 2y ago
> but I think strict open source is the best net good for the world we live in. Hard disagree. I think, importantly, that it is case-dependent. I don't think it's "the best net good" that essentially the only companies that are able to make a profit from certain types of open-source products are Google, Amazon and Microsoft. It took quite a long time to determine if it would be possible for companies to build business models off open source, and so now that (again, for certain types of software) those business models basically evaporated due to the hyperscalers, I love this "fair source" movement. Like you said, I think it's great that they are not trying to confuse this with open source. I think each has its place, and I think it's good that they sound like they're not trying to "compete" with open source, they're just trying to build a model where companies can be permissive with their source code but not have all their profits sucked up by giant tech companies.
bsder 2y ago
> I admire the desire to make source code transparently available, and let people use it for free, but I think strict open source is the best net good for the world we live in. Genuinely open source is also a better defense against lawsuits. If the code is open source, some big company can sue, but the end users have rights as well as the code copyright holder. They're going to have to prove what code is being used and someone is likely to write code around the issue immediately. Sure, lots of people could get sued, but it's either not going to be worth it or someone with a big wallet is going to get involved which puts an immediate stop to things. If the code isn't completely open source, then a lawsuit from a big company to a small one demanding a pulldown has a LOT more force since end users have no rights in that case at all (see what happened to Our Machinery).
conor- 2y ago
Considering GitHub created their own implementation of git to dance around the gray areas of the GPL, it doesn't really come as a surprise that the new product from the same people are also shying away from copyleft or permissible licensing. Obviously that's likely a pretty uncharitable interpretation of something a lot more nuanced, but it's really frustrating to watch companies increasingly benefit from GPL'd software while simultaneously taking their ball and going home when it's convenient.

paxys 2y ago

The contributor side of it is important as well. If I'm using an open source product, I'm generally very happy to spend long hours debugging edge cases, writing detailed bug reports, pushing fixes, suggesting and adding enhancements and generally being involved in the community, knowing that I'm doing my share and improving the experience for everyone. Nowadays it is increasingly likely that my effort is eventually going to be relicensed and repackaged into non-free software without my consent, and no one (not even me myself) will be allowed to continue to benefit from my work. IMO the issue really lies with the VC funding model. Every single one of these projects that has done a license bait and switch has taken outside funding, and these investors want to see an exponential return, which simply cannot be attained by keeping the software free. Stewardship by a reputed open source foundation is the only possible future for such projects if they want to actually stay open and do right by their community.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
> Nowadays it is increasingly likely that my effort is eventually going to be relicensed and repackaged into non-free software without my consent, and no one (not even me myself) will be allowed to continue to benefit from my work. The curious thing (and developers have the right) is that permissive licenses, like MIT, are growing every year while copyleft licenses like the GPL are decreasing in popularity. According to a loose Statista graph, ~41% of OSS projects used permissive licenses in 2012. By 2021, it was ~78%. The Register has also noted this phenomenon. Copyleft is completely out of fashion. https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/17/mit_apache_versus_gpl/ https://www.theregister.com/2020/01/17/mit_apache_versus_gpl... Personally, if I was making a solo OSS project, I completely get it. If Google wants to use it, even if they never gave back, I would be honored and quite possibly get a job from that. Using GPL just means my software will only be useful to GPL-loving compatriots, which is to say, almost nowhere outside the Linux communities. It's also not fair when my company (like most companies) benefitted immensely from various bits of MIT/Apache licensed software, so to give back to the community as a whole with the GPL feels unfair.
- WesolyKubeczek 2y ago
  > The curious thing (and developers have the right) is that permissive licenses, like MIT, are growing every year while copyleft licenses like the GPL are decreasing in popularity. Not very surprising given the sizeable army of all the “developer evangelists”, “developer advocates”, and “devrel people” who have been quite vocal on the gpl-bad-mit-good stance, all the while being on Big Tech’s dime, one way or another. Why would Big Tech want to promote this view so much? Commoditize your complement, that’s why.
danenania 2y ago
Open core is a tried and true business model. It’s essentially just freemium, which businesses have done forever. If a healthy proprietary product can be built on the open source base, that’s a win-win. The company gets revenue and a sustainable business; the community gets free open source software with a highly motivated steward. There’s no reason to relicense if it works. Things can go wrong in various ways of course, and drawing the line in the right place is a challenge, but that doesn’t mean that every VC-backed open core product is doomed to relicense. There are many examples of it working out well for both the company and community.

layer8 2y ago

> It's also ironic to me that this software is being built on top of git, and thus is a business model entirely dependent upon FOSS, while wanting to differentiate and build a business on top of it with a moat but still sharing the code in a way that protects them To be fair (no pun intended), they could build it on top of two-year-old Git just the same. I rather fear that two years of DOSP are too short to be attractive for many companies that might otherwise adopt that license model.

gjsman-1000 2y ago
This will probably be the biggest weakness with the FSL. Some companies will say, "it's FSL 1.1, but three years." Or, "it's FSL 1.1, but four years." Or, "it's FSL 1.1, but only if we go bankrupt." And on and on.
- zeeg 2y ago
  FSL is strict on two years. We certainly would not promote a version that’s variable. You could make one, but it’s our job as a community to say “no!”
ezekg 2y ago
When we really think about it, what's the real fear behind 2-year vs 4-year DOSP? Is it that users will choose the 2-year OSS version over the latest version, or that it encourages more viable competition? The former sounds like a value problem, and the latter sounds like an adoption problem, and those share a root problem. The BUSL with a 4-year delay has shown to work, so why wouldn't the FSL with a 2-year delay also work? I personally feel like 2 years is a good enough head start i.r.t. competition, while providing users with more viable options to recover a lost or sunken ship.
- layer8 2y ago
  The longer a product/service exists, the easier it is to compete with it based on the version two years prior, in particular if the source of the current version is also available (even if you can’t use it verbatim — but you can build your own variant of newer features, possibly even with a fully compatible API).

solidsnack9000 2y ago

Many business models are entirely dependent on FOSS. It's not really an argument either way. If it weren't for those businesses, a lot of FOSS work would not happen...

godelski 2y ago

> I think strict open source is the best net good for the world we live in. I agree BUT we've also seen through decades that this model is not working. While there are plenty of notable exceptions, it is difficult to make a living developing code transparently and making it available to the public. We've seen that large companies will build around these tools and pressure developers but not return compensation. We've seen that many of these projects become integral in our infrastructure (though often hidden several layers deep). We've seen that code quality is degraded as things are rushed and the reality is only a few people work on these projects. We've simply learned that we can't really rely on donations and corporations will find it difficult to justify funding even if they highly depend on it (even when it is in their best interest). Because charity is "charity". The real best thing would be to ensure we have an economy where we compensate people for work that others find beneficial. As in, work is work. If you're developing tools that others are using and monetarily benefiting from, you should be compensated for that work. The world I want to see is where you can make a living as a full time open source dev. And not just for gigantic projects that are easily recognizable as critical, but anything that is critical. Anything that is useful. I really want to live in that OSS world, but I think we should also have a serious conversation about the issues we face. That we need to question if the incentives align like we think they align. And consider time, as they might have in the past but no longer do. I'll ask a proxy question: Could you research and invent a (Star Trek style) replicator in this environment? Replace with some other device if you will, but such a thing like this would upend many businesses and likely the cannibalize itself. But such a tool would fundamentally change peoples lives for the better, making post scarcity not only possible, but trivial (there are other easier ways to get post scarcity). Fwiw, when I ask the economists[0] they give a two letter answer. It is undeniable that the way we've done things has been successful. But past performance is no guarantee of future performance. The burden of advancement is that you have to get more nuanced over time. Essentially, we can do well with a low order approximation, but that only goes so far. As you progress, you need to account for more and more higher order terms. So the question is if we've advanced enough where these matter. [0] I only explain what the device does. Having the ability to assemble things from the atomic level. Like a 3d printer but for atoms. They are smart enough to figure out the rest and I do confirm this. (My partner is an economist, so I pester them about things like this and they do others in reverse. It's good fun)

m463 2y ago

> strict open source is the best RMS gets a lot of flack, but he's pretty good about defining terms like this precisely. Free software has no restrictions on USE, the restrictions are on redistribution. Open source is ambiguous can mean all the way from "you can see the source" to being public domain. Fair source is not free software. They are restricting how it is used.

cobbal 2y ago
Probably the widest accepted definition of the term open source is https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- m463 2y ago
  https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

hn_throwaway_99 2y ago

> but I think strict open source is the best net good for the world we live in. Hard disagree. I think, importantly, that it is case-dependent. I don't think it's "the best net good" that essentially the only companies that are able to make a profit from certain types of open-source products are Google, Amazon and Microsoft. It took quite a long time to determine if it would be possible for companies to build business models off open source, and so now that (again, for certain types of software) those business models basically evaporated due to the hyperscalers, I love this "fair source" movement. Like you said, I think it's great that they are not trying to confuse this with open source. I think each has its place, and I think it's good that they sound like they're not trying to "compete" with open source, they're just trying to build a model where companies can be permissive with their source code but not have all their profits sucked up by giant tech companies.

bsder 2y ago

> I admire the desire to make source code transparently available, and let people use it for free, but I think strict open source is the best net good for the world we live in. Genuinely open source is also a better defense against lawsuits. If the code is open source, some big company can sue, but the end users have rights as well as the code copyright holder. They're going to have to prove what code is being used and someone is likely to write code around the issue immediately. Sure, lots of people could get sued, but it's either not going to be worth it or someone with a big wallet is going to get involved which puts an immediate stop to things. If the code isn't completely open source, then a lawsuit from a big company to a small one demanding a pulldown has a LOT more force since end users have no rights in that case at all (see what happened to Our Machinery).

conor- 2y ago

Considering GitHub created their own implementation of git to dance around the gray areas of the GPL, it doesn't really come as a surprise that the new product from the same people are also shying away from copyleft or permissible licensing. Obviously that's likely a pretty uncharitable interpretation of something a lot more nuanced, but it's really frustrating to watch companies increasingly benefit from GPL'd software while simultaneously taking their ball and going home when it's convenient.