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

321–330 of 407 posts

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#321

Post by diffeomorphism »

huhtenberg wrote: post #292
diffeomorphism wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that is completely wrong. If you can _see_ the source, then it is _shared_ source ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative ). If you can _use_ and _change_ it, then it's a _open_ source. Are you going to tell me next that "free speech" means not paying for the radio? And that everything else is just one interpretation of the term? Or that freeware and free software are interchangeable terms? CC is…

> CC is not open source and does not get to pretend it is. CC is not a closed source license either, which is what GP claimed. That's the point. > Come up with your own marketing name. ... and the second point is that OSI zealotry doesn't make anyone any good. "Open" is an ambiguous word. It's the same issue as with "Free software", which is almost universally followed by the "free as in speech, not as in beer" expla…

The GP is me. CC is not open source^TM and hence closed source^TM.

> "Open source" is a misnomer,

Sure, but who cares? The fact is that if you tell me "this software is open source" I know that this is a domain specific term and what it means, just like "this is a normal vector". In particular "normal" here means something else than in standard English.

The only thing you are then doing is complaining about how you wanted to use "normal" for your new cool definition.... That ship has sailed.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#322

Post by blablabla123 »

kakwa_ wrote: post #122
hizanberg wrote: post #23

Likely the best outcome for the project barring company sponsorship that pays him to continue working on it as OSS. He's been the sole maintainer on the project since 2012 [1] and has never been compensated for it, he says it will always be free to end users but wants companies that are financially benefiting from it to help sponsor continued development [2]: > I will never ask end users for financial support. FUSE w…

Well, in this specific case, I think the best outcome would be for Apple to merge the module in the MAC OSX kernel so it's there by default, FUSE is kind of a de-facto standard and is clearly a widely useful piece of code. But, big picture, yes a lot of OSS projects have the same issue. Funding is clearly one aspect, but another aspect is also to work on having less "single person projects" (and I'm not talking about…

I wouldn't mind if there was a "DONATE" button, I'd certainly donate 5$ or 10$. Under these circumstances even more since this driver is unique and several other drivers I use depend on it. (sshfs, perkeep, ext4fuse, ...) Probably these small but frequently used projects should also be supported by the FSF, at least in the *GPL case.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#323

Post by khc »

hemancuso wrote: post #320

I think this is fairly overblown, there are a fair number of FUSE for macOS forks out there with signing certificates. I have kext signing certificate for ExpanDrive, Google has one for Google Filestream, I suspect many others have one as well. Rightfully, Apple doesn't hand them out as easily as they do with regular developer certificates, but if you want one and do a reasonable job representing that you're not goin…

What do you think future of fuse on macOS will be like?

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#324

Post by ehutch79 »

khc wrote: post #323
hemancuso wrote: post #320

I think this is fairly overblown, there are a fair number of FUSE for macOS forks out there with signing certificates. I have kext signing certificate for ExpanDrive, Google has one for Google Filestream, I suspect many others have one as well. Rightfully, Apple doesn't hand them out as easily as they do with regular developer certificates, but if you want one and do a reasonable job representing that you're not goin…

What do you think future of fuse on macOS will be like?

https://developer.apple.com/system-extensions/

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#325

Post by ehutch79 »

khc wrote: post #323
hemancuso wrote: post #320

I think this is fairly overblown, there are a fair number of FUSE for macOS forks out there with signing certificates. I have kext signing certificate for ExpanDrive, Google has one for Google Filestream, I suspect many others have one as well. Rightfully, Apple doesn't hand them out as easily as they do with regular developer certificates, but if you want one and do a reasonable job representing that you're not goin…

What do you think future of fuse on macOS will be like?

https://developer.apple.com/videos/play/wwdc2019/702/

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#326

Post by hemancuso »

khc wrote: post #323
hemancuso wrote: post #320

I think this is fairly overblown, there are a fair number of FUSE for macOS forks out there with signing certificates. I have kext signing certificate for ExpanDrive, Google has one for Google Filestream, I suspect many others have one as well. Rightfully, Apple doesn't hand them out as easily as they do with regular developer certificates, but if you want one and do a reasonable job representing that you're not goin…

What do you think future of fuse on macOS will be like?

I have no inside information but assuming they continue to expose the VFS layer they will very likely build a usermode extension framework that is quite like FUSE, but supported by the OS and maintained by Apple.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#327

Post by cr0sh »

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.

No, you can't. That is true. But if my choice is between zero dollars, and 100 lines of code, I'll take the code, because at least it is something.

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#328

Post by mr__y »

progval wrote: post #207
mr__y wrote: post #206

Is there any copyright/licence specialist here? I've come up with an idea of having a free open software library that randomly displays offensive[0] messages full screen that comes with a BSD type licence with a clause that forbids removing/disabling that message. I assume that many developers or end-users[1] at home are perfectly fine with a messagebox popping up once a month with a "f## off" message, while any corp…

> with a clause that forbids removing/disabling that message This sounds similar to the "invariant sections" clause of the GNU Free Documentation License; except you're talking about software instead of documentation. > I assume that many developers or end-users[1] at home are perfectly fine with a messagebox popping up once a month with a "f## off" message Some people are really angry about GNU Parallel's citation "…

>Some people are really angry about GNU Parallel's citation "nag

the way I understand this, is that by requiring to interactively enter "will cite" the ability to run it as part of a larger script is broken. This would break a cron-job as well. The non-interactive nag in output would not cause such probles.

The non-interactive message in output of course could create problems on its own - especially if the nag would or would not display randomly. If someone intends to parse the output, this would require additional code to discard the nag. If the nag would sometimes display and sometimes not, this could randomly break stuff - if there was no nag during tests someone could not notice that they need to discard it.

But there are non-intrusive ways to insert some offensive message - they could be put to syslog, or a file with an offensive name/content would be created. My general idea is not to nag the users per se but do something that does not cause actual inconvenience for the user but is unacceptable in corporate environment.

For a GUI app a simple message box appearing once a month would not cause a major problem or hurt productivity of the end-user but I assume that for example Apple or Google would not find it acceptable for their software to display "f-off" even if this was rare.

For non-interactive/non-GUI software other ways to inject that message would be needed. For instance, a http server could inject additional X-F-Off header or a daemon could require env variable ICONSUMEFECES set to "daily"

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#329

Post by beering »

javajosh wrote: post #298
dspillett wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 licen…

I'm not sure how that works, legally. If I understand you, you're suggesting that you can GPL your work to create leverage in a future negotiation with a potential user who wants to modify it privately and/or integrate it into proprietary software. Can you un-GPL your work for a single entity? Doesn't that mean that you yourself are violating the GPL? I'm legitimately asking, not being rhetorical.

If you're the sole author of the code (or own the copyright or have the ability to relicense), then you can. It's not "un-GPL"ing the code because whatever you GPL'd will continue to be available under the GPL forever.

But you can say, hey, I'm ALSO releasing this code under a separate commercial license that costs $X dollars to get.

You can't infringe on your own copyright!

Re: FUSE for macOS is no longer open source

#330

Post by pjmlp »

djsumdog wrote: post #265
simias wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my system of value (which is of course subjective and you may not share) I do consider that these open source projects suffer a sort of tragedy of the commons where some companies benefit immensely from them (think how expensive it would be to build and maintain something like osxfuse from scratch) but don't contribute anything back to it. It's like big corporations managing to pay little to no taxes in the countr…

Part of this goes back to the entire GPL/AGPL vs everything else debate. Everyone has been getting away from GPLv3 and it's derivatives for the past decade. In that world, would it matter so much if some commercial interests took a product, since they'd always have to at least show their work? The idea was that we'd eventually have FOSS replacements for everything from Photoshop to Word to video editors. 2019 and GIM…

What happened with Android was already visible with the first wave of netbooks and embedded boards, each running their own Linux flavour.

Naturally the Google support club thought they weren't a corporation like everyone else.

Post reply on HN