FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral
lucumr.pocoo.org
FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral
1–10 of 201 posts
Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral
#2SQLite is the first thing that comes to my mind when I think about "cathedral" projects, but apparently it's not truly "cathedral" in the original meaning ("…with no beta to be released before its time", while SQLite is built in the open, albeit by a few people).
Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral
#3I am not sure this is legal in my country!
In Czechia "release" is a legal act done by author(or right holder). You can do it by uploading code on Github etc.. But it is something author did themselfs.
You can not perform legal act (releasing) with extra conditions like a delay. Either you did it or not!
For the same reason you can not put extra conditions in Last Will (house is yours, but you have to take care of my cats). That part is simply not enforceable and gets ignored by notary!
So I am worried, clause about Apache license is invalid, and software may get forever stuck under less permisive license!
Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral
#4How is the FSL any different than tiered, expiring copyright terms? This is a step backwards for libre software. It's like a mix between copyright and patent, in the sense that the monopoly (patent) expires after a given point, but you're still bound by license terms that are less permissive than they should be to be libre software.
For the record I don't care what qualifies as open source, as that is a commercialized term and thus will lean toward permissive or permissive + trademark stuff like the MPL and Apache licenses.
It seems the best way to build libre software, from my perspective, is through the AGPL. Compliance is as easy as providing a link to the repository of code you use to provide the service.
If a license like FSL catches on, what stops modified licenses from cropping up with extended expiry terms? Before you know it, a SaaS suddenly needs 5, no... 10 years before it becomes profitable! Because we should care about profit in a bazaar or a community...
As well-meaning as these efforts are to help developers find more sustainable means of developing, I don't think this is going to help. Security patches in the community-friendly code will be 2 years behind, guaranteed. People who can't pay for the latest version will have to use an old version which might be broken.
We need to come to terms with the idea that capitalism and volunteering can't easily coexist. The incentives and goals of business are opposite that of libre software development. Libre software seeks to enable everyone regardless of their assets.
By all means, solicit ways to incentivize your work in libre software. Relicense if you must, but I will steer clear of this license like the plague. It is not compatible with software freedom until its expiry date occurs, and even then it's questionable and hard to trust.
I care about software freedom but ultimately decided that I wasn't going to spend my time on something where other people participating couldn't respect me, or acknowledge and appreciate my contributions. I've been on both sides of that relationship and I know how it should be done, but few ever reciprocated when I tried to be cordial.
Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral
#5I am not sure this is legal in my country! In Czechia "release" is a legal act done by author(or right holder). You can do it by uploading code on Github etc.. But it is something author did themselfs. You can not perform legal act (releasing) with extra conditions like a delay. Either you did it or not! For the same reason you can not put extra conditions in Last Will (house is yours, but you have to take care of my…
> You can not perform legal act (releasing) with extra conditions like a delay. Either you did it or not!
There are definitely fundamental legal questions in Open Source licenses that differ from country to country, but you're most likely incorrect that a delay cannot happen in Czechia. Delays in (non software) licenses are very common and have been held up in courts. In fact, that's the common case of many licenses that they hare different rights associated over time.
> For the same reason you can not put extra conditions in Last Will
I doubt that whatever regulates wills restricts contracts or licenses.
Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral
#6While I am not entirely persuaded the specifics of this license are correct it does seem to be a potential improvement over the status quo and so it is good that it is being tried.
With the economic situation how it is I think we will see a lot of these sorts of things shake out as our current direction is unsustainable.
Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral
#7I don’t think it’s reasonable to call it a “two-year exclusivity period”—it’s more like a two-year dead man’s switch. As long as the original SaaS is relevant you are never competing with it, because you won’t be able to reuse any security fixes that the original developer made. Unless, of course, you are Amazon or Oracle, and can afford an independent security team.
I don’t know how I feel about this. Or, okay, right now I feel that I’ll believe it when I see the old versions actually go open source for, say, several times the declared period. (The first BUSL versions of Sentry, from 2019, only started running out their timers a year ago.) Otherwise, I ... don’t think that, say, Stallman would call it evil? It’s certainly better than the other non-FOSS possibilities. And yet I feel absolutely no desire to contribute (to the non-FOSS versions) under such conditions, and I wouldn’t suggest others do so, either. So I don’t know if there’s a “bazaar” to have here, or if the “bazaar” should spend its efforts on such cases instead of going elsewhere.
Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral
#8I am not sure this is legal in my country! In Czechia "release" is a legal act done by author(or right holder). You can do it by uploading code on Github etc.. But it is something author did themselfs. You can not perform legal act (releasing) with extra conditions like a delay. Either you did it or not! For the same reason you can not put extra conditions in Last Will (house is yours, but you have to take care of my…
> You can not perform legal act (releasing) with extra conditions like a delay. Either you did it or not! There are definitely fundamental legal questions in Open Source licenses that differ from country to country, but you're most likely incorrect that a delay cannot happen in Czechia. Delays in (non software) licenses are very common and have been held up in courts. In fact, that's the common case of many licenses…
Yes, they could put extra paragraphs that become valid after 2 years, that would be OK.
But the way it is written, it changes existing license! Effectively making a new release! You can not do that in EU, what if user does not agree with the new licence? It is quite illegal in most EU countries!
You can not swap licenses like that! Many scammers do that, and there are strong pro-consumer laws to prevent that!
What is worse, it even terminates old license after two years! Really really stupid lawyer worked on this!
Here is the text:
> On the second anniversary of the date we make the Software available, the Software will become available under the Apache 2.0 license. On that date, the Terms and Conditions above automatically terminate and the following terms become effective:
Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral
#9I don’t think it’s reasonable to call it a “two-year exclusivity period”—it’s more like a two-year dead man’s switch. As long as the original SaaS is relevant you are never competing with it, because you won’t be able to reuse any security fixes that the original developer made. Unless, of course, you are Amazon or Oracle, and can afford an independent security team. I don’t know how I feel about this. Or, okay, righ…
> because you won’t be able to reuse any security fixes that the original developer made
You are, just not in a competing commercial service. For that you would have to wait for two years. Which is precisely the point. In a non commercial, self hosted setting you're free to incorporate these patches.
Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You can not perform legal act (releasing) with extra conditions like a delay. Either you did it or not! There are definitely fundamental legal questions in Open Source licenses that differ from country to country, but you're most likely incorrect that a delay cannot happen in Czechia. Delays in (non software) licenses are very common and have been held up in courts. In fact, that's the common case of many licenses…
Yes, they could put extra paragraphs that become valid after 2 years, that would be OK. But the way it is written, it changes existing license! Effectively making a new release! You can not do that in EU, what if user does not agree with the new licence? It is quite illegal in most EU countries! You can not swap licenses like that! Many scammers do that, and there are strong pro-consumer laws to prevent that! What is…
> But the way it is written, it changes existing license! You can not do that in EU, what if user does not agree with the new licence? It is quite illegal in most EU countries!
It is not illegal as the license terms are available from the start. The text of the license effectively changes. If you do not agree with what the license looks like after two years, you should not enter into that agreement in year zero.
> Many scammers do that, and there are strong pro-consumer laws to prevent that!
Consumer laws are largely based on the idea that you cannot take away people's rights, you can generally add rights. Even if there was a hypothetical case that you mention, it would be legally absurd in the FSL case. You could have the license swap over in the US, after which point in time no trace of the FSL remains and the license file can be legally swapped. In that case you can re-import the source code into your country.