Live data from Hacker News

FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

colatkinson.site

91–100 of 407 posts

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#91
post #79
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unless it was GPLv3 he liked.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#92
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, this wouldn't have been a problem if the software had been gpl licensed, as the companies would've been forced to give back whatever they changed themselfes, potentially helping him out a lot

You cannot pay rent with 3rd party code contributions.

The point he is making is that FOSS as an idea is independent from OP's post and thus not necessarily influenced by it.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#93
post #78

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…

> Morally, the only fault I can say on the maintainer's behavior is a lack of transparency.

Totally agree with that. The maintainer seems to have made very little effort to get compensated for his work. It would surely be nice if some company stepped-up and offered to sponsor the development of the project. But it's also kind of childish to scheme and hold grudges for not getting something you never bothered asking for.

Other open-source developers have been in a similar position in the past, but the handling of the situation was much more transparent and considerate. Off the top of my head, I can remember the example of Synergy [1]. When the developer needed support, he announced well in advance the changes to the model of development. And actually put the time to spin-up a company around the project, and offer ways for normal users to support development.

[1] https://symless.com/synergy

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#94
post #47

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 wan…

I’m impressed with the business savvy applied here. Well played!

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#95
this quite reminds of the openssl saga, but on a smaller scale, with single developer more or less responsible for world's encryption for decade.

it's a pity, it's a shame that companies who use FOSS benefit, but do not understand (or do, but ignore) the idea of FOSS, which is to give back to community. this also includes other FOSS companies, etc as everyone uses openssl, zlib and sqlite.

to base a project on FOSS requires that you contribute back. or pay back if you can. and when your business makes 1000$ then 1$ out of every 1000$ for the FOSS guy that made it possible is money worth spending, isn't it?

if it's true that VeraCrypt, the G company and others based work on this developer's efforts and forgot, for decade, to give back anything, well - it's well deserved to leave them staring at the blank repo. well deserved indeed, as they had plenty of time and resource to compensate the author while reaping benefits off his work. well done to choose the BSD license in this case.

all other companies building big-software based on hundreds opensource projects should rethink their strategies.

there is no free lunch, someone pays for it. and its a shame, when this someone is left alone to pay for his lunch, while hundreds benefit from it. maybe there should be the FOSS Church and at least make these people revered as saints.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#96
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It’s a shame that the article is written in this tone The article seemed pretty neutral excluding the slightly shady stuff like not mentioning the license change properly, timely or even in expected locations > the dominant sentiment among open source folks The dominant sentiment of open source folks is that they want open source instead of proprietary software? That seems expected, it’s after all the whole point.…

The dominant sentiment of open source folks is that they don't want to pay for anything, even if it is open source.

Feel free to have that opinion, this is not in any way related to the article though.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#97
post #79
post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

GDrive Enterprise is a publicly available product with a Mac client so the footnote doesn't seem to line up with what you're saying.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#98
post #86
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The dominant sentiment of open source folks is that they don't want to pay for anything, even if it is open source.

That's a lie, lots of people donate voluntarily for their favorite free software every day. If you decide to be a leech that's fine too, but don't try to convince yourself others are that way as well.

Donations don't allow for a sustainable business.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#99
post #44
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…

What do you mean by "instead"? Commons Clause is closed source.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#100
post #81
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…

> 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. If he doesn't have a copyright assignment, he probably can't easily change the license. However, if the license is BSD, he can just not release source code. And, if he wasn't getting any contributions anyway then he gets…

No, you don’t need copyright assignment to relicense permissively-licensed code, you (or anyone else really) literally only need to say “fuck it” and start building on the old BSD code with a new license.

It is when you’re relicensing to a less restrictive license, say GPL to BSD, that you need CLA shenanigans beforehand.

Post reply on HN