4 ms·

This comment got me digging, n8n actually has a pretty good post-open source license[1] - I'm glad to see more successful examples of this sort of licensing in

by bsnnkv 1y ago

This comment got me digging, n8n actually has a pretty good post-open source license[1] - I'm glad to see more successful examples of this sort of licensing in the wild [1]: https://docs.n8n.io/sustainable-use-license/ https://docs.n8n.io/sustainable-use-license/

poly2it 1y ago
It's great and all that their business strategy is working out, but anyone looking to use a FOSS solution isn't going to care at all. This is basically just allowing self-hosting of a third-party's cloud, which is an improvement over traditional SaaS, but shouldn't dilute the FOSS label.
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  > but shouldn't dilute the FOSS label This is such a strange thing to post in response to a link which states: > Although n8n's source code is available under the Sustainable Use License, according to the Open Source Initiative (OSI), open source licenses can't include limitations on use, so we do not call ourselves open source.
  - poly2it 1y ago
    I don't think it's strange at all. These licenses obviously have rhetoric reminiscent of FOSS licenses. These companies just don't want to call their technology proprietary.
    - bsnnkv 1y ago
      I'm not sure what else you and others who make these kinds of comments are looking for from projects like these who are already explicitly and clearly stating that they are _not_ FOSS projects It's as if you don't want source code to be available _at all_ unless it's under a FOSS license
      - cmsj 1y ago
        Surely the goal is to ensure that there is no erosion of FOSS as a concept? The existence and growth of FOSS is something that has happened as a result of considerable advocacy, and while its broad success has become somewhat self-sustaining, there will never not be the risk of a slide into more single-corporation-friendly "source available" realms. It's not a bad thing to push for "source available" to be considered as not going far enough, and to not let it supplant FOSS through purely pragmatic concerns.
        bsnnkv 1y ago
        > there will never not be the risk of a slide into more single-corporation-friendly "source available" realms There is something off about this to me in a world where FOSS exists in it's present form primarily to the outsized benefit of hyperscalers and entrenched incumbents There was a post on another forum earlier this week on this same broad topic which resonated deeply with me, as someone (who like most of the US population) is a layoff and a medical emergency away from ruin: > When I started getting interested in open source, I had problems like unreliable software, the inability to inspect or improve it, limited experience with collaborating. Open source solved those, but now my most pressing problem is that the excellent software I use is undermaintained and outright abandoned because the creators can't afford to keep donating time to it. Open source has been a process for solving problems, not the end goal. If it's not capable of solving problems, it's time for new approaches.[1] [1]: https://lobste.rs/c/d4kmra https://lobste.rs/c/d4kmra
      - Lutger 1y ago
        Look at the other comments, one states "Oh, it's open (core) source." Not exactly the fault of n8n, but the confusion is there to clear up. That is all I'm reading into it.
        JimDabell 1y ago
        > Not exactly the fault of n8n They did start out by incorrectly calling themselves open-source, but to their credit they stopped doing that and have been very clear ever since.
  - adastra22 1y ago
    They only added that qualification after huge community backlash. Last time I looked they still called themselves open source despite that claim.
- greenavocado 1y ago
  Sir, this is a VC forum for people that are trying to make money
  - turnsout 1y ago
    Too real
  - sixtyj 1y ago
    And I thought that we do everything for prestige /s
  - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
    So, a forum full of people who will be very much affected by restrictions on commercial use?
blitzar 1y ago
How much equity did they kick back to the devs from the open source era?
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  As much as I appreciate a good snarky comment, this is a good reminder for contributors to be thoughtful about the licenses under which they contribute code to projects > Nowhere in any common open license does anyone promise to keep working on their project, much less on particular terms. Any contributor to a permissively-licensed project can license their next contribution however they want. Any steward of a copyleft project with rights to all contributions can, too. Much as you could pick an Apache-licensed project, fork it, and sell your enhanced version under proprietary terms, a project steward can share new work under new terms, as well. > > None of this changes the license terms for old releases. Prior versions with MIT or Apache 2 or MPLv2 or what have you in the LICENSE file remain available to use, share, and change under those terms. That includes forking. We see that every time a going-forward relicensing spawns a new one. The reason the new license terms matter for new releases is that those new license terms apply to the diff between the old release and the new one.[1] [1]: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2023/09/23/Two-Kinds-Relicensing https://writing.kemitchell.com/2023/09/23/Two-Kinds-Relicens...
philipwhiuk 1y ago
"post-open source license" That's a terrible reimagining, subtlying implying that open-source is old and past it. It's a pre-open source license. They've not quite made the bar.
- cap11235 1y ago
  It's a license that tastes like the usual embrace, extend, extinguish.
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  > subtlying implying that open-source is old and past it It's really not that deep; U2 and Mogwai exist in the same timeline, in the same shared canon of contemporary music. > It's a pre-open source license This statement is strictly ahistorical; the earliest software licenses which made source code available to everyone and included restrictions on redistribution and/or use date back to the late 1990s[1][2]. You can certainly _try_ to make the case that these are the same as the Xerox license, but I don't think it would be a very strong one. [1]: https://spdx.org/licenses/Aladdin.html https://spdx.org/licenses/Aladdin.html [2]: https://spdx.org/licenses/QPL-1.0.html https://spdx.org/licenses/QPL-1.0.html
sneak 1y ago
The term you are looking for is “source available” license.
- bsnnkv 1y ago
  Maybe we can solve the "free" vs "libre" vs "open" debate first
  - sneak 1y ago
    There’s no debate. These terms were completely settled more than a decade ago.

by bsnnkv 1y ago

poly2it 1y ago

It's great and all that their business strategy is working out, but anyone looking to use a FOSS solution isn't going to care at all. This is basically just allowing self-hosting of a third-party's cloud, which is an improvement over traditional SaaS, but shouldn't dilute the FOSS label.

bsnnkv 1y ago
> but shouldn't dilute the FOSS label This is such a strange thing to post in response to a link which states: > Although n8n's source code is available under the Sustainable Use License, according to the Open Source Initiative (OSI), open source licenses can't include limitations on use, so we do not call ourselves open source.
- poly2it 1y ago
  I don't think it's strange at all. These licenses obviously have rhetoric reminiscent of FOSS licenses. These companies just don't want to call their technology proprietary.
  - bsnnkv 1y ago
    I'm not sure what else you and others who make these kinds of comments are looking for from projects like these who are already explicitly and clearly stating that they are _not_ FOSS projects It's as if you don't want source code to be available _at all_ unless it's under a FOSS license
    - cmsj 1y ago
      Surely the goal is to ensure that there is no erosion of FOSS as a concept? The existence and growth of FOSS is something that has happened as a result of considerable advocacy, and while its broad success has become somewhat self-sustaining, there will never not be the risk of a slide into more single-corporation-friendly "source available" realms. It's not a bad thing to push for "source available" to be considered as not going far enough, and to not let it supplant FOSS through purely pragmatic concerns.
      - bsnnkv 1y ago
        > there will never not be the risk of a slide into more single-corporation-friendly "source available" realms There is something off about this to me in a world where FOSS exists in it's present form primarily to the outsized benefit of hyperscalers and entrenched incumbents There was a post on another forum earlier this week on this same broad topic which resonated deeply with me, as someone (who like most of the US population) is a layoff and a medical emergency away from ruin: > When I started getting interested in open source, I had problems like unreliable software, the inability to inspect or improve it, limited experience with collaborating. Open source solved those, but now my most pressing problem is that the excellent software I use is undermaintained and outright abandoned because the creators can't afford to keep donating time to it. Open source has been a process for solving problems, not the end goal. If it's not capable of solving problems, it's time for new approaches.[1] [1]: https://lobste.rs/c/d4kmra https://lobste.rs/c/d4kmra
    - Lutger 1y ago
      Look at the other comments, one states "Oh, it's open (core) source." Not exactly the fault of n8n, but the confusion is there to clear up. That is all I'm reading into it.
      - JimDabell 1y ago
        > Not exactly the fault of n8n They did start out by incorrectly calling themselves open-source, but to their credit they stopped doing that and have been very clear ever since.
- adastra22 1y ago
  They only added that qualification after huge community backlash. Last time I looked they still called themselves open source despite that claim.
greenavocado 1y ago
Sir, this is a VC forum for people that are trying to make money
- turnsout 1y ago
  Too real
- sixtyj 1y ago
  And I thought that we do everything for prestige /s
- yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
  So, a forum full of people who will be very much affected by restrictions on commercial use?

blitzar 1y ago

How much equity did they kick back to the devs from the open source era?

bsnnkv 1y ago
As much as I appreciate a good snarky comment, this is a good reminder for contributors to be thoughtful about the licenses under which they contribute code to projects > Nowhere in any common open license does anyone promise to keep working on their project, much less on particular terms. Any contributor to a permissively-licensed project can license their next contribution however they want. Any steward of a copyleft project with rights to all contributions can, too. Much as you could pick an Apache-licensed project, fork it, and sell your enhanced version under proprietary terms, a project steward can share new work under new terms, as well. > > None of this changes the license terms for old releases. Prior versions with MIT or Apache 2 or MPLv2 or what have you in the LICENSE file remain available to use, share, and change under those terms. That includes forking. We see that every time a going-forward relicensing spawns a new one. The reason the new license terms matter for new releases is that those new license terms apply to the diff between the old release and the new one.[1] [1]: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2023/09/23/Two-Kinds-Relicensing https://writing.kemitchell.com/2023/09/23/Two-Kinds-Relicens...

philipwhiuk 1y ago

"post-open source license" That's a terrible reimagining, subtlying implying that open-source is old and past it. It's a pre-open source license. They've not quite made the bar.

cap11235 1y ago
It's a license that tastes like the usual embrace, extend, extinguish.
bsnnkv 1y ago
> subtlying implying that open-source is old and past it It's really not that deep; U2 and Mogwai exist in the same timeline, in the same shared canon of contemporary music. > It's a pre-open source license This statement is strictly ahistorical; the earliest software licenses which made source code available to everyone and included restrictions on redistribution and/or use date back to the late 1990s[1][2]. You can certainly _try_ to make the case that these are the same as the Xerox license, but I don't think it would be a very strong one. [1]: https://spdx.org/licenses/Aladdin.html https://spdx.org/licenses/Aladdin.html [2]: https://spdx.org/licenses/QPL-1.0.html https://spdx.org/licenses/QPL-1.0.html

sneak 1y ago

The term you are looking for is “source available” license.

bsnnkv 1y ago
Maybe we can solve the "free" vs "libre" vs "open" debate first
- sneak 1y ago
  There’s no debate. These terms were completely settled more than a decade ago.