4 ms·

I've written this above and it's a point I don't see very many people make in this discussion, but you're locking yourself into an ecosystem that has a monopoly

I've written this above and it's a point I don't see very many people make in this discussion, but you're locking yourself into an ecosystem that has a monopoly on hosting as a service. That damages you as a customer because you no longer have choice about what service you go to for hosting. You're left with either hosting it yourself or going with the only vendor who's allowed to. That's not a great experience. It's not a hard thought experiment. Just imagine this license applied to whatever database you're used to spinning up in the cloud on whatever provider you want. If that one provider doesn't have the plan you're looking for, you're forced to take on the work of hosting it yourself because no one is allowed to do that for you and let you pay them because the license forbids it.

Dylan16807 1y ago
That seems fine to me? If I want them to host it then I don't care a lot about the license, and my escape hatch of self-hosting is quite good. I don't think self hosting is a big burden. And competitors can still host a mildly older version freely, so that prevents long term lock-in even if I ignore self hosting. So the main company still has to compete to keep business, which is good for everyone, but they keep some control over the hosting business, which means they're less likely to get crushed and stop updating. I think it sounds good overall.
evanelias 1y ago
OK, but how do these concerns apply specifically to self-hosted dev tools such as Liquibase? Why do you object to FSL for this specific type of software, which has a different usage pattern than a database server?
- gr4vityWall 1y ago
  Because it's proprietary software. The GNU and the FSF website have written plenty about it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor... That license restricts what you can do with the software due to a business interest of the author. Therefore, it's non-free or proprietary.
  - evanelias 1y ago
    I was specifically replying to the GP, who commented about concerns of "locking yourself into an ecosystem that has a monopoly on hosting as a service". I wanted to know why that specific concern is an issue for GP, in the context of software like Liquibase which isn't even hosted in the first place. Your reply does not address that in any way. > That license restricts what you can do with the software due to a business interest of the author. Yes, it restricts you from offering a competing hosted service. Do you offer a competing hosted service to Liquibase using Liquibase's source code? Is this something you ever would conceivably do? If not, how does this restriction affect your life in any way? > Therefore, it's non-free or proprietary. I never claimed it was Free Software.
    - gr4vityWall 1y ago
      > I wanted to know why that specific concern is an issue for GP That's exactly what my comment is addressing! People advocating for Free Software don't usually advocate that _only_ the software they use should be free; they advocate for the freedom of all users. > I never claimed it was Free Software. You did not, indeed. Sorry if my wording gave the impression I was trying to put claims in your post. That phrase is an answer to this question from you: > Why do you object to FSL for this specific type of software We object to it because it makes the software proprietary rather than free.
      - evanelias 1y ago
        OK, so you care about freedom. And yet you tell other people how they should license their software projects, even when you aren't involved in those projects in any way, and their license choices don't impact you in any way. And you tell people what software they should and shouldn't use purely on subjective philosophical grounds. Personally I call that something other than promoting freedom. Quite the opposite.
        gr4vityWall 1y ago
        > you tell people what software they should and shouldn't use Please, there's no point in arguing like that. There's no need to mischaracterize or reword what another user is saying. I don't think we'll get much further in this discussion if you consider yourself a fan of the FSL, a proprietary license. Your time will be better spent replying to other people.
aDyslecticCrow 1y ago
But thats not a discussion about free or not free software. That's a discussion about interoperability, standards and vendor lock-in. Free software encurrage interoperability to a degree, but interoperability and free software are very separate things. And hosting providers are not evil or bad for making highly coupled systems. Its a valuable service companies gladly pay for, and a compromise developers need to calculate in their plans.

Dylan16807 1y ago

That seems fine to me? If I want them to host it then I don't care a lot about the license, and my escape hatch of self-hosting is quite good. I don't think self hosting is a big burden. And competitors can still host a mildly older version freely, so that prevents long term lock-in even if I ignore self hosting. So the main company still has to compete to keep business, which is good for everyone, but they keep some control over the hosting business, which means they're less likely to get crushed and stop updating. I think it sounds good overall.

evanelias 1y ago

OK, but how do these concerns apply specifically to self-hosted dev tools such as Liquibase? Why do you object to FSL for this specific type of software, which has a different usage pattern than a database server?

gr4vityWall 1y ago
Because it's proprietary software. The GNU and the FSF website have written plenty about it: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-important.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-even-more-impor... That license restricts what you can do with the software due to a business interest of the author. Therefore, it's non-free or proprietary.
- evanelias 1y ago
  I was specifically replying to the GP, who commented about concerns of "locking yourself into an ecosystem that has a monopoly on hosting as a service". I wanted to know why that specific concern is an issue for GP, in the context of software like Liquibase which isn't even hosted in the first place. Your reply does not address that in any way. > That license restricts what you can do with the software due to a business interest of the author. Yes, it restricts you from offering a competing hosted service. Do you offer a competing hosted service to Liquibase using Liquibase's source code? Is this something you ever would conceivably do? If not, how does this restriction affect your life in any way? > Therefore, it's non-free or proprietary. I never claimed it was Free Software.
  - gr4vityWall 1y ago
    > I wanted to know why that specific concern is an issue for GP That's exactly what my comment is addressing! People advocating for Free Software don't usually advocate that _only_ the software they use should be free; they advocate for the freedom of all users. > I never claimed it was Free Software. You did not, indeed. Sorry if my wording gave the impression I was trying to put claims in your post. That phrase is an answer to this question from you: > Why do you object to FSL for this specific type of software We object to it because it makes the software proprietary rather than free.
    - evanelias 1y ago
      OK, so you care about freedom. And yet you tell other people how they should license their software projects, even when you aren't involved in those projects in any way, and their license choices don't impact you in any way. And you tell people what software they should and shouldn't use purely on subjective philosophical grounds. Personally I call that something other than promoting freedom. Quite the opposite.
      - gr4vityWall 1y ago
        > you tell people what software they should and shouldn't use Please, there's no point in arguing like that. There's no need to mischaracterize or reword what another user is saying. I don't think we'll get much further in this discussion if you consider yourself a fan of the FSL, a proprietary license. Your time will be better spent replying to other people.

aDyslecticCrow 1y ago

But thats not a discussion about free or not free software. That's a discussion about interoperability, standards and vendor lock-in. Free software encurrage interoperability to a degree, but interoperability and free software are very separate things. And hosting providers are not evil or bad for making highly coupled systems. Its a valuable service companies gladly pay for, and a compromise developers need to calculate in their plans.