7 ms·

Old(?) school open source with GPL licenses doesn't seem to suffer from this, on a first glance. Maybe Stallman was right. Would love to hear from someone more

by haolez 2y ago

Old(?) school open source with GPL licenses doesn't seem to suffer from this, on a first glance. Maybe Stallman was right. Would love to hear from someone more knowledgeable on this. I'm not trying to troll.

ghshephard 2y ago
GPL is actually a great license for this scenario. The software advances to a particular level of development, inertia, market penetration - then the company that owns the software dual licenses with GPLv3 - which no company can risk to have on their premise, distribute, or use/touch, etc... - ergo you then have to pay for a commercial license to avoid the GPLv3 taint.
- graemep 2y ago
  Why can companies not use GPL3 software? I cannot see how its so different from GPL 2 for companies that are users. I can see it has some disadvantages for companies incorporating GPL software in their products, but none for companies merely using GPL 3 software.
  - ghshephard 2y ago
    I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise. It's probably why Apple stopped updating all their GNU binaries, and you have to sideload stuff with brew to use anything released in the last 10 years. If I had to guess - The patent rights clause weirds out a lot of lawyers. Obviously anyone who works with hardware doesn't like the anti-tivoization clause. Another possibility is the AGPL (which IS lethal for obvious reasons) is often conflated with GPLv3. All I know is GPLv2 is fine, GPLv3 is usually not, and AGPL is never possible in corporations that I've worked for.
    - graemep 2y ago
      I can see it makes sense for Apple (anti-tivoization is something they do not want). > I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise So they do not allow the use of things like Bash or GNU coreutils? That seems quite restrictive and difficult.
      - swiftcoder 2y ago
        They often use older version of things like Bash and Coreutils, or equivalents from other ecosystems (i.e. Apple ships the BSD versions thereof)
        graemep 2y ago
        So, for example, if they use RHEL version 6 or later they will install it without the default shell? Apple is different as they produce their own OS. I am asking about non-software companies avoiding GPL3 which would be necessary for (as the comment I responded to earlier in the tread claims) the use of GPL3 providing a motive to pay for licenses for dual licensed software in a way GPL2 does not.
    - trws 2y ago
      A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions. Most places run gpl3 stuff just fine. The one organizations won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL.
      - graemep 2y ago
        > A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions In the context of the thread (the claim GPL 3 provides more of a motive for people to by paid licences for dual licensed software) I think that "small refinement" covers most of what we are talking about though.
      - worik 2y ago
        > won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL. I feel out of touch Why?>
        swiftcoder 2y ago
        The AGPL has a significantly stronger viral clause than the plain GPL. You must offer the source code to anyone who connects to the AGPL-covered code via a network connection (i.e. must open source the entire server if it is using any AGPL code)
        orthoxerox 2y ago
        Releasing the whole server sounds more like the Commons Clause or the SSPL. AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users.
        swiftcoder 2y ago
        > AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users The AGPLv3 is exactly the same as the GPLv3, except with the added clause that connecting to a server counts as distribution for the purposes of triggering the right to obtain source code. That means all the usual GPL copyleft rules apply: if you include an AGPL library in your server binary, the entire binary becomes subject to the AGPL. And being subject to the AGPL, you are obligated to provide access to the source code for your entire server binary to anyone who connects to and interacts with your service across a network. Quoting from https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-the-agplv3 https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-t... : > Simply put, the AGPLv3 is effectively the GPLv3, but with an additional licensing term that ensures that users who interact over a network with modified versions of the program can receive the source code for that program... > These terms cover the distribution of verbatim or modified source code as well as compiled executable binaries. However, they only apply when a program is distributed, or more specifically, conveyed to a recipient... > The AGPLv3 does not adjust or expand the definition of conveying. Instead, it includes an additional right that if the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send responses over a network, the user is entitled to receive the source code of the version being used.
    - coldpie 2y ago
      > I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise My limited experience with IP lawyers at big software companies is that they have zero understanding of software licensing and patent law. They just seem to parrot some line they learned in college 10 years ago, even when the plain text of the license or law sitting in front of them proves them wrong. It's honestly baffling how they get these jobs.
    - PeterCorless 2y ago
      I used to work for a company that used AGPL. For databases, in particular, it's not as noxious as people make it seem, other than if you are a hyperscalar trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and run them out of business, or a bottom feeding hosted service company also trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and coattail on their success. Otherwise it works great for end-user adoption.
omoikane 2y ago
Old school open source projects don't seem particularly profitable. The projects themselves might thrive, but that seem to rely on altruistic developers with other sources of income. Richard Stallman himself doesn't seem to make money from any software he made directly, but from various grants and such, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20220123032418/http://tech.mit.edu/V121/N59/59stallman.59n.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220123032418/http://tech.mit.e... I thought he was on the payroll for FSF, but his reportable compensation has been zero from 2002 to 2022 according to: https://www.fsf.org/about/financial https://www.fsf.org/about/financial
- wussboy 2y ago
  > Old school open source projects don't seem particularly profitable. And is also subject to survivorship bias. For every OSS project that makes it, tens of thousands do not.
- bigiain 2y ago
  You're kinda saying the same thing there. As a developer, I don't want to rely on code from a project that "seems particularly profitable", because one day it's 100% certain they're going to start making their profit off me. I'm _extremely_ wary of any "open source" projects that're VC funded, because the entire VC industry exists to make rich people richer at everybody else's expense, throwing a few bones at a few of the founders and a vanishingly small portion of the startup employees. As soon as they think that can get away with it because they have enough "free" open source users locked, they're gonna turn all the screws to chase the "100x or bust" exit strategy the VCs rely on. At the expense of everybody who foolishly built something on to of that project without an easy way to replace it.
  - omoikane 2y ago
    I am saying that old school projects aren't paying the developers' bills because they aren't profitable. The developers realize this too, there is only so much altruism to go around but you got mouths to feed and rents to pay. As an alternative to working on a second job to fund their passion, we are seeing developers trying various things to make their one passion job pay, such as licensing tweaks or VC funding. These don't seem to work out very well, I think it's best explained here: https://apenwarr.ca/log/20211229 https://apenwarr.ca/log/20211229 "So it is with free software. You literally cannot pay for it. If you do, it becomes something else."
lucianbr 2y ago
Maybe? Every day it seems clearer that Stallman is right. Mouse subscription? Windows displaying ads in start menu and recording everything you do? How many devices have become useless when the servers shot down, or games became unplayable? How many times books or songs or movies have disappeared from "online collections" after being paid for? "The right to read" seems more and more realistic as time passes. In my opinion, Stallman has been proven right many times over.
- monero-xmr 2y ago
  Well what do you expect to maintain the mouse’s cloud servers, if not subscription revenue? The greed here!
  - chii 2y ago
    if the server was integral to the running of the service then yes, it makes sense to discontinue it when there's no more profit to be made. However, increasingly more and more services which could've been an on-premises deployment become SAAS. This includes games (live services they call it). It is _designed_ to end, and designed to not be able to run locally. Tell me who's the greedy one.
    - jokethrowaway 2y ago
      I don't think it's designed to end, they're just trying to: - Prevent piracy - Extract more money per user (subscriptions, repeated purchases in-game) Look, you can live perfectly fine without all of those services, there are indie games and there are old games and, according to some, they're much better than any online crapware from today. Make it a point not to buy Free to play online crap, forbid your kids from playing that crap. Absolutely don't give them any money for this crap. If enough people stop buying the we'll see a shift to the DRM & no hassle approach of indie games. I'd also prefer giving my money to a small team of devs than some corporate ladder who happend to purchase the latest AAA game built by a studio of overworked and underpaid devs.
  - linker3000 2y ago
eikenberry 2y ago
FSF requires signing of a CLA. A CLA would let them change the license to whatever they want, just like these companies. Some people were not happy with GPL3 yet that didn't stop the FSF from changing the licenses on their software.
- teddyh 2y ago
  The FSF does not require a CLA.
  - eikenberry 2y ago
    If they don't that is something new. Do you know when that started (or rather, stopped)?
    - Conan_Kudo 2y ago
      This stopped a long time ago. Many older GNU projects still have them, but newer ones are not required to have them. Some have even made their usage optional. An example of a project making it optional is GCC itself: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html
      - eikenberry 2y ago
        That's great news! I've always been a big supporter of the FSF and that they stopped this toxic practice it awesome!
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- mschae23 2y ago
  They explain that without it, they can't effectively enforce the copyrights on their projects: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html.en https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html.en I highly doubt that the FSF, who developed the GPL licenses and values free software above anything else, would change the licensing of their projects like "these companies" do.
SoftTalker 2y ago
What is the GPL-licensed product that is comparable in functionality and scalability to CockroachDB? If there is one, you're free to use it.
tsimionescu 2y ago
MongoDB switched from AGPL to their own license when they couldn't compete with others offering their software as SaaS, so I don't think the GPL is any kind of protection from this. It's just that the GPL is less popular than alternatives for this type of business model.
- haolez 2y ago
  That's a very good counter example. Although, I'd imagine, the latest AGPL version will be useful for a long time and any further progress in the code base would also be under AGPL, which would not be under risk of becoming an open core project.
pjmlp 2y ago
Which is exactly why we are back into Public Domain/Shareware kind of models, and GPL is an endangered license model, only some old school projects keep it around. It will be even worse after the GPL developer generation is gone.

by haolez 2y ago

ghshephard 2y ago

GPL is actually a great license for this scenario. The software advances to a particular level of development, inertia, market penetration - then the company that owns the software dual licenses with GPLv3 - which no company can risk to have on their premise, distribute, or use/touch, etc... - ergo you then have to pay for a commercial license to avoid the GPLv3 taint.

graemep 2y ago
Why can companies not use GPL3 software? I cannot see how its so different from GPL 2 for companies that are users. I can see it has some disadvantages for companies incorporating GPL software in their products, but none for companies merely using GPL 3 software.
- ghshephard 2y ago
  I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise. It's probably why Apple stopped updating all their GNU binaries, and you have to sideload stuff with brew to use anything released in the last 10 years. If I had to guess - The patent rights clause weirds out a lot of lawyers. Obviously anyone who works with hardware doesn't like the anti-tivoization clause. Another possibility is the AGPL (which IS lethal for obvious reasons) is often conflated with GPLv3. All I know is GPLv2 is fine, GPLv3 is usually not, and AGPL is never possible in corporations that I've worked for.
  - graemep 2y ago
    I can see it makes sense for Apple (anti-tivoization is something they do not want). > I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise So they do not allow the use of things like Bash or GNU coreutils? That seems quite restrictive and difficult.
    - swiftcoder 2y ago
      They often use older version of things like Bash and Coreutils, or equivalents from other ecosystems (i.e. Apple ships the BSD versions thereof)
      - graemep 2y ago
        So, for example, if they use RHEL version 6 or later they will install it without the default shell? Apple is different as they produce their own OS. I am asking about non-software companies avoiding GPL3 which would be necessary for (as the comment I responded to earlier in the tread claims) the use of GPL3 providing a motive to pay for licenses for dual licensed software in a way GPL2 does not.
  - trws 2y ago
    A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions. Most places run gpl3 stuff just fine. The one organizations won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL.
    - graemep 2y ago
      > A small refinement here, your statements are largely my experience dealing with people linking against gpl3 software because of the vitality and the patent exemptions In the context of the thread (the claim GPL 3 provides more of a motive for people to by paid licences for dual licensed software) I think that "small refinement" covers most of what we are talking about though.
    - worik 2y ago
      > won’t touch with a ten foot pole, even to run it, is AGPL. I feel out of touch Why?>
      - swiftcoder 2y ago
        The AGPL has a significantly stronger viral clause than the plain GPL. You must offer the source code to anyone who connects to the AGPL-covered code via a network connection (i.e. must open source the entire server if it is using any AGPL code)
        orthoxerox 2y ago
        Releasing the whole server sounds more like the Commons Clause or the SSPL. AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users.
        swiftcoder 2y ago
        > AGPL requires you only to provide the source code of your fork to its users The AGPLv3 is exactly the same as the GPLv3, except with the added clause that connecting to a server counts as distribution for the purposes of triggering the right to obtain source code. That means all the usual GPL copyleft rules apply: if you include an AGPL library in your server binary, the entire binary becomes subject to the AGPL. And being subject to the AGPL, you are obligated to provide access to the source code for your entire server binary to anyone who connects to and interacts with your service across a network. Quoting from https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-the-agplv3 https://www.fsf.org/bulletin/2021/fall/the-fundamentals-of-t... : > Simply put, the AGPLv3 is effectively the GPLv3, but with an additional licensing term that ensures that users who interact over a network with modified versions of the program can receive the source code for that program... > These terms cover the distribution of verbatim or modified source code as well as compiled executable binaries. However, they only apply when a program is distributed, or more specifically, conveyed to a recipient... > The AGPLv3 does not adjust or expand the definition of conveying. Instead, it includes an additional right that if the program is expressly designed to accept user requests and send responses over a network, the user is entitled to receive the source code of the version being used.
  - coldpie 2y ago
    > I can't say for certain why they can't use GPLv3 - just that no company I've ever worked for (n=4 since GPLv3 came out) - will allow it on premise My limited experience with IP lawyers at big software companies is that they have zero understanding of software licensing and patent law. They just seem to parrot some line they learned in college 10 years ago, even when the plain text of the license or law sitting in front of them proves them wrong. It's honestly baffling how they get these jobs.
  - PeterCorless 2y ago
    I used to work for a company that used AGPL. For databases, in particular, it's not as noxious as people make it seem, other than if you are a hyperscalar trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and run them out of business, or a bottom feeding hosted service company also trying to commercialize someone else's hard work and coattail on their success. Otherwise it works great for end-user adoption.

omoikane 2y ago

Old school open source projects don't seem particularly profitable. The projects themselves might thrive, but that seem to rely on altruistic developers with other sources of income. Richard Stallman himself doesn't seem to make money from any software he made directly, but from various grants and such, for example: https://web.archive.org/web/20220123032418/http://tech.mit.edu/V121/N59/59stallman.59n.html https://web.archive.org/web/20220123032418/http://tech.mit.e... I thought he was on the payroll for FSF, but his reportable compensation has been zero from 2002 to 2022 according to: https://www.fsf.org/about/financial https://www.fsf.org/about/financial

wussboy 2y ago
> Old school open source projects don't seem particularly profitable. And is also subject to survivorship bias. For every OSS project that makes it, tens of thousands do not.
bigiain 2y ago
You're kinda saying the same thing there. As a developer, I don't want to rely on code from a project that "seems particularly profitable", because one day it's 100% certain they're going to start making their profit off me. I'm _extremely_ wary of any "open source" projects that're VC funded, because the entire VC industry exists to make rich people richer at everybody else's expense, throwing a few bones at a few of the founders and a vanishingly small portion of the startup employees. As soon as they think that can get away with it because they have enough "free" open source users locked, they're gonna turn all the screws to chase the "100x or bust" exit strategy the VCs rely on. At the expense of everybody who foolishly built something on to of that project without an easy way to replace it.
- omoikane 2y ago
  I am saying that old school projects aren't paying the developers' bills because they aren't profitable. The developers realize this too, there is only so much altruism to go around but you got mouths to feed and rents to pay. As an alternative to working on a second job to fund their passion, we are seeing developers trying various things to make their one passion job pay, such as licensing tweaks or VC funding. These don't seem to work out very well, I think it's best explained here: https://apenwarr.ca/log/20211229 https://apenwarr.ca/log/20211229 "So it is with free software. You literally cannot pay for it. If you do, it becomes something else."

lucianbr 2y ago

Maybe? Every day it seems clearer that Stallman is right. Mouse subscription? Windows displaying ads in start menu and recording everything you do? How many devices have become useless when the servers shot down, or games became unplayable? How many times books or songs or movies have disappeared from "online collections" after being paid for? "The right to read" seems more and more realistic as time passes. In my opinion, Stallman has been proven right many times over.

monero-xmr 2y ago
Well what do you expect to maintain the mouse’s cloud servers, if not subscription revenue? The greed here!
- chii 2y ago
  if the server was integral to the running of the service then yes, it makes sense to discontinue it when there's no more profit to be made. However, increasingly more and more services which could've been an on-premises deployment become SAAS. This includes games (live services they call it). It is _designed_ to end, and designed to not be able to run locally. Tell me who's the greedy one.
  - jokethrowaway 2y ago
    I don't think it's designed to end, they're just trying to: - Prevent piracy - Extract more money per user (subscriptions, repeated purchases in-game) Look, you can live perfectly fine without all of those services, there are indie games and there are old games and, according to some, they're much better than any online crapware from today. Make it a point not to buy Free to play online crap, forbid your kids from playing that crap. Absolutely don't give them any money for this crap. If enough people stop buying the we'll see a shift to the DRM & no hassle approach of indie games. I'd also prefer giving my money to a small team of devs than some corporate ladder who happend to purchase the latest AAA game built by a studio of overworked and underpaid devs.
- linker3000 2y ago

eikenberry 2y ago

FSF requires signing of a CLA. A CLA would let them change the license to whatever they want, just like these companies. Some people were not happy with GPL3 yet that didn't stop the FSF from changing the licenses on their software.

teddyh 2y ago
The FSF does not require a CLA.
- eikenberry 2y ago
  If they don't that is something new. Do you know when that started (or rather, stopped)?
  - Conan_Kudo 2y ago
    This stopped a long time ago. Many older GNU projects still have them, but newer ones are not required to have them. Some have even made their usage optional. An example of a project making it optional is GCC itself: https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html https://gcc.gnu.org/pipermail/gcc/2021-June/236182.html
    - eikenberry 2y ago
      That's great news! I've always been a big supporter of the FSF and that they stopped this toxic practice it awesome!
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mschae23 2y ago
They explain that without it, they can't effectively enforce the copyrights on their projects: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html.en https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-assign.html.en I highly doubt that the FSF, who developed the GPL licenses and values free software above anything else, would change the licensing of their projects like "these companies" do.

SoftTalker 2y ago

What is the GPL-licensed product that is comparable in functionality and scalability to CockroachDB? If there is one, you're free to use it.

tsimionescu 2y ago

MongoDB switched from AGPL to their own license when they couldn't compete with others offering their software as SaaS, so I don't think the GPL is any kind of protection from this. It's just that the GPL is less popular than alternatives for this type of business model.

haolez 2y ago
That's a very good counter example. Although, I'd imagine, the latest AGPL version will be useful for a long time and any further progress in the code base would also be under AGPL, which would not be under risk of becoming an open core project.

pjmlp 2y ago

Which is exactly why we are back into Public Domain/Shareware kind of models, and GPL is an endangered license model, only some old school projects keep it around. It will be even worse after the GPL developer generation is gone.