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

141–150 of 407 posts

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#141

Post by huhtenberg »

diffeomorphism wrote: post #99
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…

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

I know exactly what you mean, but this is incorrect.

CC is not "closed source". CC makes a license incompatible with the OSI definition of "open source", which is one of the interpretations of the term.

There's a persistent confusion over the difference between OSI's definition and the casual understanding of it. To the laymen, if you can _see_ the source, then it's an _open_ source. And if you can _use_ and _change_ it, then it's a _free_ source.

So when you start claiming that if it's not "OSI's open source", it's "closed source" - it doesn't help matters in the slightest, nor does it help advancing OSI's view of the open source.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#142

Post by dspillett »

f1refly wrote: post #84
pjmlp wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This will keep going on, until FOSS community accepts that beyond university projects, someone pumping up their CVs, having a company sponsorship, or being able to pimp it up with some kind of subscription/consulting, there is little to no money to be made and everyone has bills to pay.

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

Or better from a funding PoV: dual licensed. AGPL by default, with non-FOSS licences available for a price.

That way companies or other projects that won't touch *GPL for whatever reason have an option that allows them to use the code while helping the project.

Of course this could make the code incompatible with other open licence (or the licensing policies of some larger projects) so isn't a perfect solution. I'm not sure a perfect solution exists when the project maintainer(s) need income to be able to justify the time to continue their work and have not found some other form of sponsorship.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#144

Post by dspillett »

javajosh wrote: post #89
f1refly wrote: 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.

But you might be able to pay rent with it if those not wanting to feed back their work wanted the code enough to negotiate a paid licence under other terms.

That can be messy for projects with many past maintainers where the licence options at the time of individual contributions did not explicitly allow this or arbitrary relicensing, but in this case (single current maintainer, other contributions made under a licence that allows him to do this) it needn't be.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#146

Post by ossworkerrights »

jasonkester wrote: post #49

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…

I think there should be either a dual licensing model, where if a company earns more than X$ they need to pay a license, if you are a student wanting to learn more about how its implement then it's free, or you just have to pay for it.

OSS has killed indie development, for the benefit of large corporations. Thousands of developers out there are putting in their own sweat blood and tears in advancing "humanity" by building great OSS products, only to be taken advantage of. Seal the pipe. Charge money for great work!

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#147

Post by laughinghan »

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.

Fleischer isn't harmed by Google using it, in the same sense that Google isn't harmed by him releasing osxfuse 3.10 under a proprietary license instead of BSD.

For the community it's certainly a pity, but I guess if you consider open source projects to be "default dead", not contributing to keeping it alive isn't the same thing as harming a project community.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#149

Post by dmytroi »

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.

Maybe. What we know factually at this point in time: osxfuse was BSD licensed, Google used it and haven't contributed back. osxfuse is popular project.

If it was GPL licensed, do you think Google would bother to use it? Or would they write their own instead? Would we even know about osxfuse then?

MIT/BSD is amazing on bootstrap phase, when getting code used and building user base is top priority. Monetization always comes later. Using GPL from the start might just turn your first users away and you might never manage to get critical mass of users to be able to monetize product at all.

In this particular case we don't know if there were any other previous attempts at financing it, like have maintainer contacted Google to provide consulting services? Or provide enterprise support to other parties? etc.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#150

Post by dspillett »

progval wrote: post #124
znpy wrote: post #114

I am afraid there's nothing people can do about this issue: according to https://github.com/osxfuse/osxfuse/blob/master/LICENSE.txt the project is BSD licensed and AFAIK closing the sources of a BSD-licensed project ("re-licensing") is allowed. Yep, he's allowed to do this and people basically have to suck it up. This couldn't have happened if the code was GPL-licensed. This might be a good occasion take a moment to…

> I am afraid there's nothing people can do about this issue There is: offer the maintainer a decent (probably part-time) wage for working on this while keeping it open source.

A key problem is getting people to pony up. People are all for "the community" and the maintainers doing right by "the community" when that means they (as a member of the community) get the benefit of the code. They are often less vocal about being part of the community then the project maintainers ask for financial assistance, generally assuming that other people will chip in so it'll be OK if they don't.

This isn't just commercial interests: this is private individuals too. Welcome to the idealism of F/OSS rubbing up against less altruistic parts of human nature.

While I'm judging others I'll have to hold my hands up and say that, while I have helped out some projects in the past via both bug-fix contributions and small financial ones, and having opened some of my projects in the dim & distant past, I don't think I can claim to be a net contributor by any wider measure.

Post reply on HN