Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

colatkinson.site

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 407 posts

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#41

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

mike_d wrote: post #13

It is buried in the footnotes of the post, but the ultimate reason behind going closed source is that Google built their enterprise GDrive syncing client for mac off a fork of osxfuse. The original author of osxfuse feels entitled to some compensation for that and is doing his damnedest to make it happen.

The footnote says Google are using their own fork. Now we don't know when they forked and how much they diverged, but it's quite possible that were going to maintain their own fork, anyway.

It's also noteworthy isn't the "original author of osxfuse". In fact, Google is. So while I can empathise with the general complaint about commercial use, one doesn't get to make that complaint against the one company that originally started the project and released it under a permissive license.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#42

Post by hizanberg »

rahuldottech wrote: post #15

IIRC, FUSE is also required for VeraCrypt to function. So now the source code of this library (module? whatever) that's used by popular encryption software won't be available for public scrutiny. Amazing. The author is, of course, completely within their rights to stop publishing the source code of their software, but this is a real pity. The way to go would be for members of the FOSS community to fork the last versi…

You make it sound like there's a tonne of FOSS community on-hand just waiting for the chance to step in and create a popular fork that will lead to fragmentation, when he's effectively been the sole maintainer since 2012 [1].

It's far more likely there will no future well maintained OSS forks, he'll continue developing it as a closed-source product, allowing end-users to install it for free but any company who wants access to his future source code and improvements can compensate him for it. This is a far better outcome than it turning it into abandonware where that will stop working in future macOS versions.

> software won't be available for public scrutiny.

It's a popular cliche to think all OSS projects have healthy development communities and many eyes pouring over it, but as he's the only person contributing fixes, the only way the product was going to improve is if he spends more time working on it which is more likely to happen if he can get sponsored to continue working on it.

None of your fears are likely to come to pass and the health of the project would be far worse off if he abandoned it.

[1] https://github.com/osxfuse/osxfuse/graphs/contributors

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#43

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew »

I'm not sure if the signing process actually matters in this case? If the signing step is the limiting factor in maintaining a fork, he could have switched to the GPL and achieved the same result (commercial redistribution requiring a paid license) while maintaining the benefit of being open source.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#44

Post by eps »

mike_d wrote: post #13

It is buried in the footnotes of the post, but the ultimate reason behind going closed source is that Google built their enterprise GDrive syncing client for mac off a fork of osxfuse. The original author of osxfuse feels entitled to some compensation for that and is doing his damnedest to make it happen.

I'm not sure if the dev feels entitled for _compensation_ per se, but G and other companies don't contribute back to the project in any form. Not $ and not in code. Now that is not a very good thing... though technically that's exactly what you get with permissive O/S licenses. It looks like the dev realized that and changed the license.

It also doesn't look like he trusts this companies much, because otherwise he could've just slapped the Commons Clause on his existing license and be done with it. So he closed the source instead.

https://commonsclause.com/

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#46

Post by chenzhekl »

yegle wrote: post #39
mike_d wrote: post #13

It is buried in the footnotes of the post, but the ultimate reason behind going closed source is that Google built their enterprise GDrive syncing client for mac off a fork of osxfuse. The original author of osxfuse feels entitled to some compensation for that and is doing his damnedest to make it happen.

FWIW, MacFUSE was open sourced by Google: http://googlemac.blogspot.com/2007/01/taming-mac-os-x-file-s...

It's no longer being maintained according to the README.

https://code.google.com/archive/p/macfuse/

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#47

Post by yborg »

robgibbons wrote: post #12

Someone should fork it and apply to Apple as a new kext.

You'd be forking 2 year old code, he hasn't updated the repo in the last 2 years, knowing that the next OS release would leave commercial users at his mercy. Apple also doesn't just hand out kernel extension signing certificates to everyone that signs up for a developer account, you'd have to be someone with some reputation.

It was a well-executed fake punt, he'll get people to pay; Catalina is out now and if you want to pick it up from the fork it would take a long time to get it right. That said, I would imagine organizations like Google will make the effort after paying the toll this time because the price will only go up.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#48

Post by floatingatoll »

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #41
mike_d wrote: post #13

It is buried in the footnotes of the post, but the ultimate reason behind going closed source is that Google built their enterprise GDrive syncing client for mac off a fork of osxfuse. The original author of osxfuse feels entitled to some compensation for that and is doing his damnedest to make it happen.

The footnote says Google are using their own fork. Now we don't know when they forked and how much they diverged, but it's quite possible that were going to maintain their own fork, anyway. It's also noteworthy isn't the "original author of osxfuse". In fact, Google is. So while I can empathise with the general complaint about commercial use, one doesn't get to make that complaint against the one company that origina…

One does get to make that complaint.

Disagreeing with someone is no excuse for saying their freedom to exercise the rights of an open source license should be restricted, nor for declaring they have no right to speak their mind openly. Open source grants them this freedom, unpalatable as it may be to you.

There is no legal reason preventing their complaint from being made. It may not be well-received by those who demand unlimited reuse without compensation. Regardless, that does not restrict one’s right to make that complaint and take that action.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#49

Post by jasonkester »

Good for him.

I hope we see more of this in the future: developers realising that the work they do has value and that they’re not required to spend their lives giving it away for free. So they take control of their work product and start capturing some of that value for themselves.

It’s a shame that the article is written in this tone, as it mirrors the dominant sentiment among open source folks. There is still a lot of entitlement to be seen, even here in the comments from people who are likely to end up in the same boat as the software author referenced in the article.

I think it’ll take a while to get there.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#50

Post by Jerry2 »

robgibbons wrote: post #12

Someone should fork it and apply to Apple as a new kext.

Problem is that the 2017 version, the last version that's open source, won't run on Catalina (or Mojave or High Sierra for that matter). The amount of fixes and compatibility patches that the author did is quite extensive. Replicating his work would be quite an undertaking and wouldn't be trivial.
Post reply on HN