4 ms·

your comment made me think I read it wrong, but it's not closed source, they're just moving to a source available license...

nemothekid 2y ago
A database license that only lets you store 10TB data might as well be closed source
- kstrauser 2y ago
  Even better: that’s 10TB per organization.
  - brianwawok 2y ago
    It’s ok I’m gonna make 100 organizations in the caymans and assign 10 of my clients to each.
theamk 2y ago
> Licensor grants You a limited, non-exclusive, revocable, non-sublicensable, non-transferable, For now it's source-available with generous limit, but this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal.
- Cpoll 2y ago
  > this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal. I was going to argue, but they do explicitly say "revocable." Has such a license revocation ever been upheld in court?
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    My understanding is it’s the opposite: that license is the only thing granting you usage rights. In the absence of a contract, or words in the license to the contrary, they could revoke those rights on a whim. It’s not so much that you have a default right to use their proprietary software and they may issue something that revokes it. It’s that you have no right to use their software except their continued good will. The GPL says: > All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. That’s a huge difference.
kstrauser 2y ago
Tomato, tomato. If it’s not FOSS, I’m not going to sign off on wasting time on it. (Yes, of course I use proprietary services where necessary and they can’t be avoided. This isn’t one of those cases. Example of things where I’m pretty adamant about it: server OSes. Databases. Programming languages. Web servers.)
bayindirh 2y ago
Source available doesn't allow you to build on that software or patch it the way you see fit. Heck, even some source available licenses doesn't allow you to compile that thing, let alone get parts and use it elsewhere. However, I somewhat like source available licenses currently, because they're neat little mines that sneak in to training sets of generative AI models and make the models less suitable for serious work.
- relatedtitle 2y ago
  How does it make the models less suitable? Wouldn't more high quality source code help improve it? If it was closed source entirely it couldn't be trained on.
  - kstrauser 2y ago
    If it’s trained on proprietary software and then injects non-Free code into your project, you may have all kinds of unplanned legal exposure. That’s what makes such a model less suitable.
dragonwriter 2y ago
“Source available” is within the common usage of the term “closed source” which is simply the negation of “open source”.

nemothekid 2y ago

A database license that only lets you store 10TB data might as well be closed source

kstrauser 2y ago
Even better: that’s 10TB per organization.
- brianwawok 2y ago
  It’s ok I’m gonna make 100 organizations in the caymans and assign 10 of my clients to each.

theamk 2y ago

> Licensor grants You a limited, non-exclusive, revocable, non-sublicensable, non-transferable, For now it's source-available with generous limit, but this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal.

Cpoll 2y ago
> this can be changed or revoked at any time, and this may immediately make your existing installations illegal. I was going to argue, but they do explicitly say "revocable." Has such a license revocation ever been upheld in court?
- kstrauser 2y ago
  My understanding is it’s the opposite: that license is the only thing granting you usage rights. In the absence of a contract, or words in the license to the contrary, they could revoke those rights on a whim. It’s not so much that you have a default right to use their proprietary software and they may issue something that revokes it. It’s that you have no right to use their software except their continued good will. The GPL says: > All rights granted under this License are granted for the term of copyright on the Program, and are irrevocable provided the stated conditions are met. That’s a huge difference.

kstrauser 2y ago

Tomato, tomato. If it’s not FOSS, I’m not going to sign off on wasting time on it. (Yes, of course I use proprietary services where necessary and they can’t be avoided. This isn’t one of those cases. Example of things where I’m pretty adamant about it: server OSes. Databases. Programming languages. Web servers.)

bayindirh 2y ago

Source available doesn't allow you to build on that software or patch it the way you see fit. Heck, even some source available licenses doesn't allow you to compile that thing, let alone get parts and use it elsewhere. However, I somewhat like source available licenses currently, because they're neat little mines that sneak in to training sets of generative AI models and make the models less suitable for serious work.

relatedtitle 2y ago
How does it make the models less suitable? Wouldn't more high quality source code help improve it? If it was closed source entirely it couldn't be trained on.
- kstrauser 2y ago
  If it’s trained on proprietary software and then injects non-Free code into your project, you may have all kinds of unplanned legal exposure. That’s what makes such a model less suitable.

dragonwriter 2y ago

“Source available” is within the common usage of the term “closed source” which is simply the negation of “open source”.