3 ms·
> there are not many tools to fight open-source corporate freeloaders. and by design. These are freeloaders because open-source software's intention is to allo
by chii 2y ago
> there are not many tools to fight open-source corporate freeloaders.
and by design. These are freeloaders because open-source software's intention is to allow for people to freeload off it!
Why should "corporate" freeloaders be considered any different than just a regular freeloader? Just because they have some money?
If said software do not wish to have any freeloaders, don't use licenses that allow it. Use something like dual licenced AGPL or use a non-opensource license.
As an example, Epic's Unreal Engine is not open source, but source available. It's licensed so that hobbiests can use it free of charge, but high revenue generating projects must pay. It's a good license, as it makes their intentions completely clear and on the outset.
> AWS's freeloading on elasticsearch and others.
if elastic doesn't want it, they could've followed the same licensing model as Unreal Engine. But of course, elastic wanted the exposure and network effect of a truly open source license, but wanted to collect when someone manages to make money off it.
- deleted 2y ago[deleted]
- bawolff 2y ago> and by design. These are freeloaders because open-source software's intention is to allow for people to freeload off it! Preach! I'm tired of people complaining about other people using open source software in the exact way it was intended as "freeloaders". If you want people to pay you for your software, then just make it proprietary. There is nothing wrong with proprietary software if that's what you want to do. But if you make it open source, you can't complain when people use it in an open source fashion.
- dylan604 2y agoWhat do you call software that makes the code available to view, but has a license that forbids actually doing anything with the code other than run it?
- chii 2y agoSo a proprietary license, and the software is called proprietary software.
- nahnahnahnah 2y agoCockroachDB created what they call Business Source Licensing intended to leave the code open but prevent what AWS did to ElasticSearch.
- bigiain 2y agoThe ElasticSearch people backed down on their SSPL license change after only 3 years, and are back to an OSI approved AGPLv3 (in addition to a couple of other non OSI approved licenses). "In 2021, with the 7.11 release, we moved our Apache 2.0-licensed source code in Elasticsearch and Kibana to be dual licensed under Server Side Public License (SSPL) and the Elastic License, giving users the choice of which license to apply. In September 2024, we are adding the Open Source Initiative (OSI) approved AGPLv3 license as an option alongside SSPL and our Elastic license ensuring our community and customers have open source access to use, modify, redistribute, and collaborate on the code with a clear set of rights of their choice." -- https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing https://www.elastic.co/pricing/faq/licensing
- kemayo 2y agoYou’ll often see “source available” used for that.
- bawolff 2y agoMicrosoft used to call it shared source. As long as you don't mislead people by pretending it is open source when it isn't, you can call it anything you want.