5 ms·

More and more firms are realising that AGPL coupled with dual licensing allows them to be open source whilst protecting their commercial interests.

by moomin 1y ago

echelon 1y ago
AGPL doesn't have the critical "no commercialization" clause that prevents a direct competitor. It just prevents hyperscalers. AGPL will stop Amazon. It won't stop WP Engine. There needs to be a license that enables your customers to use you freely, but not your competitors from reselling your hard work.
- jchw 1y ago
  Your customers, potential competitors, and even hyperscalers are all possibly the same people at different points. AGPL works because corporate lawyers are horrified by it, not because it actually discriminates against hyperscalers. If you find something that even sane lawyers wouldn't tolerate, then you have greatly limited the benefits of being open source in the first place. If you make a license that actually discriminates on user or use case, then it's not open source. If you want to protect your project from being resold by potential competitors, do not release it as open source. I think this problem might solve itself, though. Slowly but surely, companies and power users have become very wary of VC funded companies making big promises and big open source releases, with the knowledge that there is rarely a plan for sustainability and that there is a good chance if they stand on that rug it could be pulled later. Soon, if trends continue, the advantages that you once got from announcing something as open source will start to evaporate and turn into a liability as people start seeing ahead to the eventual "but of course we have to be able to monetize this eventually" stage. The way I see it, a project can always be open sourced later on once there's a way to do it and ensure the company can remain sustainable. For the flagship product of a company, especially a VC-funded company, not starting open source is the ethical thing to do.
  - resiros 1y ago
    > For the flagship product of a company, especially a VC-funded company, not starting open source is the ethical thing to do. I can't even.. Seriously, I don't understand where your argument is coming from. Because, if you look at it from the greater good perspective, commercial open-source is one of the only venues to build high quality software that can be freely self-hosted, modified and built-upon. Yet, you basically push for people building closed source software, due to what I understand is dogmatic believe of what open-source should mean. > If you make a license that actually discriminates on user or use case, then it's not open source. Based on a definition, bought and sponsored by the hyperscaler lobbies. Why the hell would discriminating against hyperscaller selling the product makes it non "open-source". 99.9999% users of open-source are not hyperscaler wanting to host and sell the product and will get value from the project.
    - jchw 1y ago
      Firstly, no it wasn't. The history of the open source definition and OSI are interesting, including hijacking a term that was already in use, but the hyperscalers had nothing to do with it. I'll avoid restating Wikipedia, it's enough to say that's not right. Secondly, you can call it whatever you want but "open source" licenses that discriminate against user and use case are useless. Even if I just want to use something like a data structure implementation from your "open source" release in some unrelated project, I now have to inherit all of this baggage about your competitors. That just doesn't make any sense. The endgame of that is an ecosystem of open source that ultimately serves absolutely nobody except for maybe startup PR needs.
      - resiros 1y ago
        > The endgame of that is an ecosystem of open source that ultimately serves absolutely nobody except for maybe startup PR needs. We self-host n8n, which by definition not open-source, and love it. It serves us. Not just n8n PR. That is the case for almost all self served products for non-commercial reasons
        jchw 1y ago
  - nkmnz 1y ago
    > If you make a license that actually discriminates on user or use case, then it's not open source. No true scotsman.
    - jchw 1y ago
      I would love to hear your explanation for why you think that statement is an invocation of "no true Scotsman" of all things. Are you sure you know what that means?
      - nkmnz 1y ago
        Because I anticipate the following: A: If you make a license that actually discriminates on user or use case, then it's not open source. B: But here are n open source projects that discriminate on user or use case, e.g. everything GPL, everything with dual license, etc. A: yeeeeeeaaaah, but those aren’t TRUE open source projects!!! A true open source project would never do that!
- graemep 1y ago
  > There needs to be a license that enables your customers to use you freely, but not your competitors from reselling your hard work. There are such licenses. They are just not open source.
  - braginini 1y ago
    This one is great, but unfortunately not open source: https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/blob/master/LICENSE.md
    - seba_dos1 1y ago
      Not sure what you mean by "unfortunately". If you're looking for a license that's not open source, you'll find one that isn't - obviously.
    - graemep 1y ago
      It is also an example of why I, as an end user, prefer FOSS licenses. The possibility of forking. The redistribution clauses there do not prevent forks, but definitely make them less likely, so you remain dependent on a single supplier.
    - echelon 1y ago
      This is great. "Open" is too binary. You can't exclude companies that would harm you. We need "fair", "equitable", or "sustainable" (as this one is termed) licenses. You should be able to give your customers 100% the ability to use, modify, and redistribute so long as they don't resell you. You should be able to cut off Amazon and Google from using you. You should be able to prevent certain uses, like managed versions of your software.
      - graemep 1y ago
        The problem is that it creates a lot of uncertainty. For example, with this license, what usage is commercial? Can you distribute it to customers who buy other things from you? Can you offer services related to it - e.g. can you install it for a customer? If you modify the software under what terms are your modifications distributed? Do they have to be distributed under the same terms? There is not transfer of copyright so the original authors cannot distribute the modified version commercially as part of their enterprise edition, that means that every modified version is a fork that cannot be merged back in? As I said in another comment discouraging forks is a disadvantage for users as it leaves you dependant on one supplier. The AGPL achieves the aim of deterring the likes of Amazon from providing the software as a service (at least without contributing their changes back, in practice the will not use it at all) without these sorts of problems.
- braginini 1y ago
  Fair point, but it won't be considered open source. NetBird wants to stay open source. AGPL gives certain protection, but is not 100% bullet proof.
- znpy 1y ago
  > AGPL will stop Amazon. It won't stop WP Engine. WP Engine is not a problem, Amazon is.
  - echelon 1y ago
    The company doing 90% of the effort should see 90% of the upside. WP Engine, as I understand it, contributes next to nothing to the codebase and takes a huge bite of the overall market.
- m463 1y ago
  "no commercializaton" is not free software. The users should not be restricted. The responsibility comes from redistribution.
  - immibis 1y ago
    Maximum freedom is attained when users are restricted from taking away the freedom of other users.
    - m463 1y ago
      I meant users literally. rms told me - you can USE the software for any purpose.
      - immibis 1y ago
        Yep, and if your use involves giving the software to other people, but you don't want to give them the source code, you're restricted from that use.
        ranger_danger 1y ago
        There is no legal definition where "use" is somehow equal to "distribute" as you're using it.
        immibis 1y ago
        There's no legal definition of any of this, it's fully specified by the license.

More and more firms are realising that AGPL coupled with dual licensing allows them to be open source whilst protecting their commercial interests.

by moomin 1y ago

More and more firms are realising that AGPL coupled with dual licensing allows them to be open source whilst protecting their commercial interests.

echelon 1y ago

AGPL doesn't have the critical "no commercialization" clause that prevents a direct competitor. It just prevents hyperscalers. AGPL will stop Amazon. It won't stop WP Engine. There needs to be a license that enables your customers to use you freely, but not your competitors from reselling your hard work.

jchw 1y ago
Your customers, potential competitors, and even hyperscalers are all possibly the same people at different points. AGPL works because corporate lawyers are horrified by it, not because it actually discriminates against hyperscalers. If you find something that even sane lawyers wouldn't tolerate, then you have greatly limited the benefits of being open source in the first place. If you make a license that actually discriminates on user or use case, then it's not open source. If you want to protect your project from being resold by potential competitors, do not release it as open source. I think this problem might solve itself, though. Slowly but surely, companies and power users have become very wary of VC funded companies making big promises and big open source releases, with the knowledge that there is rarely a plan for sustainability and that there is a good chance if they stand on that rug it could be pulled later. Soon, if trends continue, the advantages that you once got from announcing something as open source will start to evaporate and turn into a liability as people start seeing ahead to the eventual "but of course we have to be able to monetize this eventually" stage. The way I see it, a project can always be open sourced later on once there's a way to do it and ensure the company can remain sustainable. For the flagship product of a company, especially a VC-funded company, not starting open source is the ethical thing to do.
- resiros 1y ago
  > For the flagship product of a company, especially a VC-funded company, not starting open source is the ethical thing to do. I can't even.. Seriously, I don't understand where your argument is coming from. Because, if you look at it from the greater good perspective, commercial open-source is one of the only venues to build high quality software that can be freely self-hosted, modified and built-upon. Yet, you basically push for people building closed source software, due to what I understand is dogmatic believe of what open-source should mean. > If you make a license that actually discriminates on user or use case, then it's not open source. Based on a definition, bought and sponsored by the hyperscaler lobbies. Why the hell would discriminating against hyperscaller selling the product makes it non "open-source". 99.9999% users of open-source are not hyperscaler wanting to host and sell the product and will get value from the project.
  - jchw 1y ago
    Firstly, no it wasn't. The history of the open source definition and OSI are interesting, including hijacking a term that was already in use, but the hyperscalers had nothing to do with it. I'll avoid restating Wikipedia, it's enough to say that's not right. Secondly, you can call it whatever you want but "open source" licenses that discriminate against user and use case are useless. Even if I just want to use something like a data structure implementation from your "open source" release in some unrelated project, I now have to inherit all of this baggage about your competitors. That just doesn't make any sense. The endgame of that is an ecosystem of open source that ultimately serves absolutely nobody except for maybe startup PR needs.
    - resiros 1y ago
      > The endgame of that is an ecosystem of open source that ultimately serves absolutely nobody except for maybe startup PR needs. We self-host n8n, which by definition not open-source, and love it. It serves us. Not just n8n PR. That is the case for almost all self served products for non-commercial reasons
      - jchw 1y ago
- nkmnz 1y ago
  > If you make a license that actually discriminates on user or use case, then it's not open source. No true scotsman.
  - jchw 1y ago
    I would love to hear your explanation for why you think that statement is an invocation of "no true Scotsman" of all things. Are you sure you know what that means?
    - nkmnz 1y ago
      Because I anticipate the following: A: If you make a license that actually discriminates on user or use case, then it's not open source. B: But here are n open source projects that discriminate on user or use case, e.g. everything GPL, everything with dual license, etc. A: yeeeeeeaaaah, but those aren’t TRUE open source projects!!! A true open source project would never do that!
graemep 1y ago
> There needs to be a license that enables your customers to use you freely, but not your competitors from reselling your hard work. There are such licenses. They are just not open source.
- braginini 1y ago
  This one is great, but unfortunately not open source: https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/blob/master/LICENSE.md https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/blob/master/LICENSE.md
  - seba_dos1 1y ago
    Not sure what you mean by "unfortunately". If you're looking for a license that's not open source, you'll find one that isn't - obviously.
  - graemep 1y ago
    It is also an example of why I, as an end user, prefer FOSS licenses. The possibility of forking. The redistribution clauses there do not prevent forks, but definitely make them less likely, so you remain dependent on a single supplier.
  - echelon 1y ago
    This is great. "Open" is too binary. You can't exclude companies that would harm you. We need "fair", "equitable", or "sustainable" (as this one is termed) licenses. You should be able to give your customers 100% the ability to use, modify, and redistribute so long as they don't resell you. You should be able to cut off Amazon and Google from using you. You should be able to prevent certain uses, like managed versions of your software.
    - graemep 1y ago
      The problem is that it creates a lot of uncertainty. For example, with this license, what usage is commercial? Can you distribute it to customers who buy other things from you? Can you offer services related to it - e.g. can you install it for a customer? If you modify the software under what terms are your modifications distributed? Do they have to be distributed under the same terms? There is not transfer of copyright so the original authors cannot distribute the modified version commercially as part of their enterprise edition, that means that every modified version is a fork that cannot be merged back in? As I said in another comment discouraging forks is a disadvantage for users as it leaves you dependant on one supplier. The AGPL achieves the aim of deterring the likes of Amazon from providing the software as a service (at least without contributing their changes back, in practice the will not use it at all) without these sorts of problems.
braginini 1y ago
Fair point, but it won't be considered open source. NetBird wants to stay open source. AGPL gives certain protection, but is not 100% bullet proof.
znpy 1y ago
> AGPL will stop Amazon. It won't stop WP Engine. WP Engine is not a problem, Amazon is.
- echelon 1y ago
  The company doing 90% of the effort should see 90% of the upside. WP Engine, as I understand it, contributes next to nothing to the codebase and takes a huge bite of the overall market.
m463 1y ago
"no commercializaton" is not free software. The users should not be restricted. The responsibility comes from redistribution.
- immibis 1y ago
  Maximum freedom is attained when users are restricted from taking away the freedom of other users.
  - m463 1y ago
    I meant users literally. rms told me - you can USE the software for any purpose.
    - immibis 1y ago
      Yep, and if your use involves giving the software to other people, but you don't want to give them the source code, you're restricted from that use.
      - ranger_danger 1y ago
        There is no legal definition where "use" is somehow equal to "distribute" as you're using it.
        immibis 1y ago
        There's no legal definition of any of this, it's fully specified by the license.