4 ms·

Its almost as if some companies coughElasticcough want the upsides of being open source without having to, you know, actually be open source.

by fergie 2y ago

llm_trw 2y ago
Being open source is not a great thing to aspire to. After all, it's just free software for people who don't want to give their users the source code.
- klez 2y ago
  What definition of "Open Source" are you talking about that allows to not give your users the source code?
  - actionfromafar 2y ago
    It's a reference to that GPL protects user access to source. (Sour grapes that the term Open Source encompasses Free Software as defined by FSF, I'd say.)
    - klez 2y ago
      The second point of the Open Source Definition is literally: > 2. Source Code > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form So I'm still not sure what they're talking about. Unless they're talking about MIT, BSD, Apache, etc. licenses, that allow third parties to redistribute compiled binaries without having to provide source code, in which case the point is still weird, since they are still considered Free Software licenses by the FSF.
      - actionfromafar 2y ago
        The last paragraph is exactly what I mean. Yes, it’s weird or at least not articulated well. Even FSF believes MIT is a free license, albeit in their view, an inferior one.
      - Suzuran 2y ago
        I think they are referring to the MIT license and similar, but not wording it well. I can take something that is MIT-licensed and incorporate it into a closed-source commercial product, and I am not forced (as I would be with the GPL) to open-source my entire commercial product. They feel this is not truly "Open Source" and it is wrong to accept licenses which allow this behavior as "Open Source".
  - llm_trw 2y ago
    The MIT license for one.
echelon 2y ago
You should be able to be open source to your customers, but closed source to hyperscalers like Amazon with 1000x your scale and budget.
- bruce511 2y ago
  You can do that. There are lots of models. Just don't call it Open Source. That term has a meaning, and you may not like the meaning, but that doesn't mean you change the term. It means you publish under a different license.
  - mickael-kerjean 2y ago
    Working on a OSS product myself, there's a much darker side I've seen played out many times by many companies including well known ones like Deutsche Bank and Royal Bank of Canada where they abuse your time and knowledge by making you think they will purchase support from you but end up never doing it.
  - mschuster91 2y ago
    The problem is, the assumption under which the "old" OSS models operate no longer hold true - primarily, that the actors (which used to be universities) play fair and contribute back to the ecosystem, and there is no reckless exploitation by single actors that kill off other actors who do contribute back. I do love open source software, I contribute to open source software in all kinds of ways from filing bug tickets over develop workarounding hacks to legitimate enhancements. I have no problem with small and medium businesses can profit off of that. But I - and many others - have a serious problems with (especially) the large hyperscalers doing just about nothing to contribute back. We need licensing models that prevent hyperscalers squeezing out the rest of the ecosystem like fucking lemons and keeping all the revenue.
    - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
      > But I - and many others - have a serious problems with (especially) the large hyperscalers doing just about nothing to contribute back. We need licensing models that prevent hyperscalers squeezing out the rest of the ecosystem like fucking lemons and keeping all the revenue. If you have a problem with this, license the product, for example, under GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL).
2Gkashmiri 2y ago
I personally see "OSI approved license is only open source license" argument as childish. Free software and free license OTOH, is much wider and is beyond the triviality of the fact whether OSI has approved a license or not. That said, "free software" movement what that is, is elastic sspl a free software ideology compatible or not?
- johannes1234321 2y ago
  What OSI mostly does in that space is giving a definition for "open source" https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Having a definitions for a term is good, as it makes sure thee is a common reference in usage. If everybody uses a different definition it hinders discussion. If that definition doesn't serve your needs better use a different term (there are more or less related other terms like free software, shared source, libre software etc) Licenses more or less automatically fall under that definition or not (yeah, yeah, there is a process by OSI for certification, but that is relatively close to the definition)
  - frumper 2y ago
    I've always read the term open source as the source is available for me to read so I know what I'm running. Beyond that if I'm an adventurous sort then I could try and compile it to run for my personal usage. Windows 95 was closed source because we couldn't read the source code, not because we couldn't contribute or fork it.
- chrisandchris 2y ago
  Is it? It's about knowing what you're getting into and what (and specifically what not) the provider of the source expects you to do. If you take a well-known license, people know what they get and, imho, maybe some larger provider will pick up your software and let your business grow. If you do a custom license, legal may say no and people avoid your software. I also think one shouldn't mix free software/free license and open source. Elastic is IMHO compatible to a free software, but it's not really open source (just source available).
martypitt 2y ago
FWIW, Elastic is now open again (AGPL) - as of about two weeks ago. https://www.elastic.co/blog/elasticsearch-is-open-source-again https://www.elastic.co/blog/elasticsearch-is-open-source-aga...
- philipwhiuk 2y ago
  And that blog utterly fails to make me convinced they truly like being open source.

Its almost as if some companies coughElasticcough want the upsides of being open source without having to, you know, actually be open source.

by fergie 2y ago

Its almost as if some companies coughElasticcough want the upsides of being open source without having to, you know, actually be open source.

llm_trw 2y ago

Being open source is not a great thing to aspire to. After all, it's just free software for people who don't want to give their users the source code.

klez 2y ago
What definition of "Open Source" are you talking about that allows to not give your users the source code?
- actionfromafar 2y ago
  It's a reference to that GPL protects user access to source. (Sour grapes that the term Open Source encompasses Free Software as defined by FSF, I'd say.)
  - klez 2y ago
    The second point of the Open Source Definition is literally: > 2. Source Code > The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form So I'm still not sure what they're talking about. Unless they're talking about MIT, BSD, Apache, etc. licenses, that allow third parties to redistribute compiled binaries without having to provide source code, in which case the point is still weird, since they are still considered Free Software licenses by the FSF.
    - actionfromafar 2y ago
      The last paragraph is exactly what I mean. Yes, it’s weird or at least not articulated well. Even FSF believes MIT is a free license, albeit in their view, an inferior one.
    - Suzuran 2y ago
      I think they are referring to the MIT license and similar, but not wording it well. I can take something that is MIT-licensed and incorporate it into a closed-source commercial product, and I am not forced (as I would be with the GPL) to open-source my entire commercial product. They feel this is not truly "Open Source" and it is wrong to accept licenses which allow this behavior as "Open Source".
- llm_trw 2y ago
  The MIT license for one.

echelon 2y ago

You should be able to be open source to your customers, but closed source to hyperscalers like Amazon with 1000x your scale and budget.

bruce511 2y ago
You can do that. There are lots of models. Just don't call it Open Source. That term has a meaning, and you may not like the meaning, but that doesn't mean you change the term. It means you publish under a different license.
- mickael-kerjean 2y ago
  Working on a OSS product myself, there's a much darker side I've seen played out many times by many companies including well known ones like Deutsche Bank and Royal Bank of Canada where they abuse your time and knowledge by making you think they will purchase support from you but end up never doing it.
- mschuster91 2y ago
  The problem is, the assumption under which the "old" OSS models operate no longer hold true - primarily, that the actors (which used to be universities) play fair and contribute back to the ecosystem, and there is no reckless exploitation by single actors that kill off other actors who do contribute back. I do love open source software, I contribute to open source software in all kinds of ways from filing bug tickets over develop workarounding hacks to legitimate enhancements. I have no problem with small and medium businesses can profit off of that. But I - and many others - have a serious problems with (especially) the large hyperscalers doing just about nothing to contribute back. We need licensing models that prevent hyperscalers squeezing out the rest of the ecosystem like fucking lemons and keeping all the revenue.
  - aleph_minus_one 2y ago
    > But I - and many others - have a serious problems with (especially) the large hyperscalers doing just about nothing to contribute back. We need licensing models that prevent hyperscalers squeezing out the rest of the ecosystem like fucking lemons and keeping all the revenue. If you have a problem with this, license the product, for example, under GNU Affero General Public License (AGPL).

2Gkashmiri 2y ago

I personally see "OSI approved license is only open source license" argument as childish. Free software and free license OTOH, is much wider and is beyond the triviality of the fact whether OSI has approved a license or not. That said, "free software" movement what that is, is elastic sspl a free software ideology compatible or not?

johannes1234321 2y ago
What OSI mostly does in that space is giving a definition for "open source" https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Having a definitions for a term is good, as it makes sure thee is a common reference in usage. If everybody uses a different definition it hinders discussion. If that definition doesn't serve your needs better use a different term (there are more or less related other terms like free software, shared source, libre software etc) Licenses more or less automatically fall under that definition or not (yeah, yeah, there is a process by OSI for certification, but that is relatively close to the definition)
- frumper 2y ago
  I've always read the term open source as the source is available for me to read so I know what I'm running. Beyond that if I'm an adventurous sort then I could try and compile it to run for my personal usage. Windows 95 was closed source because we couldn't read the source code, not because we couldn't contribute or fork it.
chrisandchris 2y ago
Is it? It's about knowing what you're getting into and what (and specifically what not) the provider of the source expects you to do. If you take a well-known license, people know what they get and, imho, maybe some larger provider will pick up your software and let your business grow. If you do a custom license, legal may say no and people avoid your software. I also think one shouldn't mix free software/free license and open source. Elastic is IMHO compatible to a free software, but it's not really open source (just source available).

martypitt 2y ago

FWIW, Elastic is now open again (AGPL) - as of about two weeks ago. https://www.elastic.co/blog/elasticsearch-is-open-source-again https://www.elastic.co/blog/elasticsearch-is-open-source-aga...

philipwhiuk 2y ago
And that blog utterly fails to make me convinced they truly like being open source.