8 ms·

It's wild to me that the prevailing opinion seems to be "It is only TRUE Open Source if megacorps can modify the software and resell it without sharing their mo

It's wild to me that the prevailing opinion seems to be "It is only TRUE Open Source if megacorps can modify the software and resell it without sharing their modifications". The hosted vs. distributed loophole is just that, a loophole. If, when the GPL was first published, the world was cloud-hosted and SaaS-ful, the GPL would either have included some provision like the SSPL, or it would have had relatively little impact on the world. I understand complaints about a lack of clear boundaries or overreach in these licenses. But acting like these aren't attempting to close a loophole being abused seems crazy to me.

orra 2y ago
> If, when the GPL was first published, the world was cloud-hosted and SaaS-ful, the GPL would either have included some provision like the SSPL, or it would have had relatively little impact on the world. Well, no on the first one. We know exactly what the GPL looks like to protect users against proprietary network hosted software: the GNU Affero General Public License.
- debugnik 2y ago
  But SSPL is already a modification of AGPL, so its terms don't seem to have be sufficient. The SSPL's network provision also requires SaaS companies to release the source of any other services and APIs they made the original software dependent on; hard to tell if that's still a valid copyright licence or more of a contract. Contrast them with EUPL, which represents the strongest copyleft the EU commission thinks a licence, as opposed to a contract, could get away with under EU directives (ignoring its compatibility clause). I'm personally wary of AGPL/SSPL not because their terms, but because the viral claises are likely to be a legal fiction where I live.
collingreen 2y ago
This opinion seems to require the idea that targeted license changes that are intentionally devastating (going from "do anything" to requiring relicensing all/some of your stack) will only ever be used against "the bad guys" tm and OF COURSE we agree on who "the bad guys" tm are and OF COURSE that will never be me or you _trust me bro_. Feels like a cliche "first they came for the richest saas providers and we said nothing..."
PeterZaitsev 2y ago
This argument about "evil megacorp" is problematic because you can't really isolate those from the small and wonderful startups. Specifically I've been directly involved in MongoDB ecosystem with FerretDB and there are so many small indie providers worldwide would love to offer MongoDB Atlas alternative to their customers, but can't because of SSPL license. I know, for many it is hard to make piece with it - Open Source, for real means EVERYONE can use it for ANY PURPOSE, and this means for good and for evil, both "good guys" and "bad guys"
- strbean 2y ago
  Small indie providers should absolutely be able to sell their MongoDB / Redis / XYZ as a service, but they should absolutely also be required by the license to contribute back their modifications to the software. Like I said, I understand the complaints about the line-drawing issues with these licenses. I don't understand the viewpoint that the current state of OSS, where hosting != distribution, is acceptable.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
    So just use AGPL. It covers hosting, it requires providing modifications, it's actually Open Source without caveats.
    - tzs 2y ago
      AGPL covers users interacting with the software remotely through a computer network which is not the same as covering hosting. There's often overlap but if it really is hosting that a project doesn't want to allow then they need something other than AGPL.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
        If you want to prohibit hosting then yes you're going to need a non-OSS license (by definition), but that's moving the goalposts: I was replying to a post that said others should be allowed to sell the software as a service, but that they should be forced to share their changes even if they're "hosting" and not "distributing"... AKA the exact point of the AGPL existing.
snoman 2y ago
Meanwhile, it’s wild to me that you seem to think open source means “free for everyone… except them - they make too much money.”
- strbean 2y ago
  That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying if a company modifies open source software and distributes it, they should be required to distribute the modified source as well. I'm further claiming that providing a hosted service is a form of distribution. > “free for everyone… except them - they make too much money.” Free for everyone, and if you make changes to improve it, and let others use the software you changed, you contribute those changes back. That's the basic principle of OSS, no?
  - gus_massa 2y ago
    > That's the basic principle of OSS, no? No, only for GPL. If the project has a BSD or MIT licence you may distribute the compiled version and keep the changes secret.
  - snoman 2y ago
    Apologies for the caricature. It’s clearly up for debate, but I’ve always thought that imposing obligations for how people use the product/code, or implying obligations for what the project is “owed” by users, isn’t free as in freedom, or beer. So I don’t think it’s a basic principle of open source. I think some people want it to be though. I get it though. People see aws et al making a business model of hosting FOSS and making boatloads of money doing it, and they don’t like it.
stephenr 2y ago
What loophole was being abused that caused Redis the company to pull the proverbial rug? The "big evil corporation" that usually gets referenced is AWS. One of the core comitters to the Redis project when it was open source, was paid to do so, by AWS, and continues to be paid to do so, on the open source fork, ValKey. It's fine to make an argument about "take it and give nothing back" when comparing the potential differences of permissive vs copyleft licenses. I likely wouldn't agree with you about which is ultimately a better choice, but I think it's fine to make that argument there. But this isn't a hypothetical. It's an actual situation, where a permissively licensed project had significant outside contributions... and still people are screaming about "the evil mega corp"... who is now even more involved in maintaining a permissively licensed fork of said software. I'm far from an AWS fan. I avoid it whenever possible, and I've made good money migrating customers off of AWS' overpriced services, but I've yet to see a single example of them doing anything that fulfils the "evil mega corp" shoe, w.r.t Redis.

orra 2y ago

> If, when the GPL was first published, the world was cloud-hosted and SaaS-ful, the GPL would either have included some provision like the SSPL, or it would have had relatively little impact on the world. Well, no on the first one. We know exactly what the GPL looks like to protect users against proprietary network hosted software: the GNU Affero General Public License.

debugnik 2y ago
But SSPL is already a modification of AGPL, so its terms don't seem to have be sufficient. The SSPL's network provision also requires SaaS companies to release the source of any other services and APIs they made the original software dependent on; hard to tell if that's still a valid copyright licence or more of a contract. Contrast them with EUPL, which represents the strongest copyleft the EU commission thinks a licence, as opposed to a contract, could get away with under EU directives (ignoring its compatibility clause). I'm personally wary of AGPL/SSPL not because their terms, but because the viral claises are likely to be a legal fiction where I live.

collingreen 2y ago

This opinion seems to require the idea that targeted license changes that are intentionally devastating (going from "do anything" to requiring relicensing all/some of your stack) will only ever be used against "the bad guys" tm and OF COURSE we agree on who "the bad guys" tm are and OF COURSE that will never be me or you _trust me bro_. Feels like a cliche "first they came for the richest saas providers and we said nothing..."

PeterZaitsev 2y ago

This argument about "evil megacorp" is problematic because you can't really isolate those from the small and wonderful startups. Specifically I've been directly involved in MongoDB ecosystem with FerretDB and there are so many small indie providers worldwide would love to offer MongoDB Atlas alternative to their customers, but can't because of SSPL license. I know, for many it is hard to make piece with it - Open Source, for real means EVERYONE can use it for ANY PURPOSE, and this means for good and for evil, both "good guys" and "bad guys"

strbean 2y ago
Small indie providers should absolutely be able to sell their MongoDB / Redis / XYZ as a service, but they should absolutely also be required by the license to contribute back their modifications to the software. Like I said, I understand the complaints about the line-drawing issues with these licenses. I don't understand the viewpoint that the current state of OSS, where hosting != distribution, is acceptable.
- yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
  So just use AGPL. It covers hosting, it requires providing modifications, it's actually Open Source without caveats.
  - tzs 2y ago
    AGPL covers users interacting with the software remotely through a computer network which is not the same as covering hosting. There's often overlap but if it really is hosting that a project doesn't want to allow then they need something other than AGPL.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
      If you want to prohibit hosting then yes you're going to need a non-OSS license (by definition), but that's moving the goalposts: I was replying to a post that said others should be allowed to sell the software as a service, but that they should be forced to share their changes even if they're "hosting" and not "distributing"... AKA the exact point of the AGPL existing.

snoman 2y ago

Meanwhile, it’s wild to me that you seem to think open source means “free for everyone… except them - they make too much money.”

strbean 2y ago
That's not even remotely what I'm saying. I'm saying if a company modifies open source software and distributes it, they should be required to distribute the modified source as well. I'm further claiming that providing a hosted service is a form of distribution. > “free for everyone… except them - they make too much money.” Free for everyone, and if you make changes to improve it, and let others use the software you changed, you contribute those changes back. That's the basic principle of OSS, no?
- gus_massa 2y ago
  > That's the basic principle of OSS, no? No, only for GPL. If the project has a BSD or MIT licence you may distribute the compiled version and keep the changes secret.
- snoman 2y ago
  Apologies for the caricature. It’s clearly up for debate, but I’ve always thought that imposing obligations for how people use the product/code, or implying obligations for what the project is “owed” by users, isn’t free as in freedom, or beer. So I don’t think it’s a basic principle of open source. I think some people want it to be though. I get it though. People see aws et al making a business model of hosting FOSS and making boatloads of money doing it, and they don’t like it.

stephenr 2y ago

What loophole was being abused that caused Redis the company to pull the proverbial rug? The "big evil corporation" that usually gets referenced is AWS. One of the core comitters to the Redis project when it was open source, was paid to do so, by AWS, and continues to be paid to do so, on the open source fork, ValKey. It's fine to make an argument about "take it and give nothing back" when comparing the potential differences of permissive vs copyleft licenses. I likely wouldn't agree with you about which is ultimately a better choice, but I think it's fine to make that argument there. But this isn't a hypothetical. It's an actual situation, where a permissively licensed project had significant outside contributions... and still people are screaming about "the evil mega corp"... who is now even more involved in maintaining a permissively licensed fork of said software. I'm far from an AWS fan. I avoid it whenever possible, and I've made good money migrating customers off of AWS' overpriced services, but I've yet to see a single example of them doing anything that fulfils the "evil mega corp" shoe, w.r.t Redis.