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

71–80 of 407 posts

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#71

Post by tus88 »

eps wrote: post #44
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 co…

> Now that is not a very good thing

I am still waiting for someone to explain why open-source software is harmed by people using it, if they don't contribute back.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#72

Post by Athas »

saagarjha wrote: post #62
shmerl wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, it pretty much is. Apple cultivates such kind of approaches by design.

This literally has zero to do with Apple aside from the fact that the project runs on macOS.

The FUSE maintainer (and this article) implies that kernel driver signing certificates are so difficult to get that forking is not realistic, even without considering the technical issues.

I don't know if that is true, but if it is, then that is a certainly due to Apple policies.

It's also interesting to contrast with Linux FUSE, which to my knowledge has never been associated with any maintainer drama.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#73

Post by kalleboo »

oefrha wrote: post #36
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.

Seems like an entire valid use case of BSD-licensed code. If you don't like it you shouldn't have chosen the BSD license in the first place. Edit: Interestingly, from https://github.com/osxfuse/osxfuse/blob/master/LICENSE.txt : > FUSE for macOS is a fork of MacFUSE. MacFUSE has been developed by Google Inc..

> If you don't like it you shouldn't have chosen the BSD license in the first place

I mean he changed the license away from BSD now, so, that works too.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#74

Post by eps »

saagarjha wrote: post #64
eps wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

> G and other companies don't contribute back to the project in any form Amit Singh literally created the project while at Google.

Fantastic, but is this meant to somehow give Google a solid excuse for not contributing back to a 3rd party fork they ended up using?

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#75

Post by rahuldottech »

hizanberg wrote: post #42
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…

1. I'm sorry if I make it sound like that, definitely not my intention. I recognize that there's a serious lack of volunteers and contributors in the FOSS ecosystem.

2. When it comes to FOSS encryption software, it is important that it's audited every-so-often. Relying on closed-source frameworks makes that impossible. All FOSS software may not be scrutinized, but it's a definite advantage that it can be, when the need arises.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#76

Post by captn3m0 »

I had a project planned for iOS[0] that would have been so much better if it could use FUSE, but looks like it can't happen now.

If someone wants to try, having a generic link between FUSE and File Providers in iOS will be a great addition. You could make a generic application that interoperates various FUSE projects against the File Provider API in iOS, so you could mount all sort of crazy stuff in iOS Files application.

[0]: https://github.com/captn3m0/ideas/blob/master/opds-ios-file-...

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#77

Post by cwyers »

tus88 wrote: post #71
eps wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 co…

> Now that is not a very good thing I am still waiting for someone to explain why open-source software is harmed by people using it, if they don't contribute back.

So, on one hand, it's not a stone soup situation in the sense that it's not like there's any less soup if Google comes and takes all the soup they can eat. On the other hand, open source software only survives when _someone_ contributes needed maintenance, bug fixes, security patches and features. If you don't find a way to incentivize people to contribute, the project can fail. Incentivizing people who are already using your code and have large sacks of cash seems like the easiest place to start.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#78

Post by otikik »

I'm fortunate enough to have been paid to do open source code for the last ~10 years or so. I am thus a huge open source & free source advocate, and I am completely biased for it.

I think everything done here seems legal, because BSD licensing pretty much allows for this (I am not a lawyer though, and I haven't examined how things were with third-party contributions for example).

Morally, the only fault I can say on the maintainer's behavior is a lack of transparency. This kind of decisive move ideally should be accompanied by an equally decisive communication effort. Trying to do this "quietly" isn't an option when a big number of users and/or big players are involved (as it seems Google is involved to some extent).

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#79

Post by deng »

atq2119 wrote: post #63
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.

That's why I prefer the GPL and variants for personal projects that I don't intend to profit off monetarily. It's a conscious choice that I do want compensation, and I don't want to work for free"--but said compensation should be in code and not necessarily in money. It's why contributing to a BSD-licensed project as a hobby can feel a bit icky, and doing the same on a GPL-licensed project doesn't.

> That's why I prefer the GPL

This is a pretty common misunderstanding. Google is using oxfuse internally and does not distribute it, so the GPL would not change anything here.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#80

Post by hhas01 »

captn3m0 wrote: post #76

I had a project planned for iOS[0] that would have been so much better if it could use FUSE, but looks like it can't happen now. If someone wants to try, having a generic link between FUSE and File Providers in iOS will be a great addition. You could make a generic application that interoperates various FUSE projects against the File Provider API in iOS, so you could mount all sort of crazy stuff in iOS Files applica…

Why? Contact the guy, talk to him.
Post reply on HN