Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral

lucumr.pocoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 201 posts

Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral

#131

Post by [deleted] »

CM30 wrote: post #101
geerlingguy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand the philosophy of wanting to use open source and gain the community / benefits of it... but using a proprietary sales model. It just doesn't work, and once you start calling users of your software who contribute nothing back anything resembling "freeloader" (whether or not you use that word), you've lost the whole concept of why most of us care about true open source. We can use it, we can learn fr…

This. I'm not sure why it's so difficult for people to grasp that open source in of itself is not a business model. It can make money sure, but for the most part that's neither guaranteed or likely. If anyone can take your code and resell it as a competitor or use it for free, then by definition you're not going to be able to monetise the way traditional software businesses can. All the attempts to block large corpor…

[deleted]

Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral

#132

Post by arp242 »

growse wrote: post #116
arp242 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your business model relies on no-one else using your software to compete with you, don't open-source the software. So you would rather have completely closed source instead of Open Source-but-for-one -detail? That's some puritanical ideology-driven nonsense. Be against this license if you wish, that fine and I'll happily debate anyone about it. But this is not a position I consider valid because obviously "more…

> So you would rather have completely closed source instead of Open Source-but-for-one -detail? Yes, because it's more honest about its intention. "but-for-one" is not open by definition , and trying to draw an equivocation is, ironically, free-riding off the virtue and benefits of actually open source projects.

> it's more honest about its intention

They're not dishonest. That you're unwilling or unable to accept anything other than a black/white worldview is not their problem.

And "not open by definition" according to what definition of "open"? It's a vague and nebulous word that can mean any number of things. You don't get to single-handedly define this. Hell, people were using "Open" to mean all sorts of things long before 1998 as it was pretty much the buzzword of the late 80s/early 90s.

Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral

#133

Post by tedivm »

bentlegen wrote: post #108
tedivm wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's their goal. The head of sentry's open source policy has openly stated that he, and sentry as a whole, want to change the definition of open source so that it has additional limits that make it easier to profit off of and control. This conversation from three months ago is really enlightening: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36972824 When the head of open source was explicitly asked about whether they're t…

> but are people who are trying to replace open source software with a shared source version Note that the thread you link to is a situation where they took an entirely closed source product, CodeCov, and made it source available under BUSL (and now FSL). > Unlike other companies, such as Hashicorp, who admit that their software is no longer open source Sentry wants to have their cake and eat it too. From the parent…

That's some real deflection. While the overall thread was certainly about CodeCov, the questions I asked your head of open source where very clear and not tied to that specific case, and their responses were as well.

I do admit it's nice hearing that the Director of Engineering at Sentry has a higher standard for what is or isn't open source software, and I hope that attitude spreads to the rest of the company. I still think that everything that Sentry does in and around the Open Source community should be seen through the lens of what the Sentry Head of Open Source has directly said, and through the actions and statements of Sentry outside of that.

Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral

#134

Post by James_K »

bentlegen wrote: post #130
James_K wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it is.

I don’t feel “given you already have a proprietary license, why wouldn’t you just make it freely permissive” needs much explaining. We develop the software; the exclusivity period helps us monetize the work (vs giving it away to someone else who would). I think it’s worth reading the announcement from 2019 when Sentry first switched to BUSL. The original article links to many such pieces. https://blog.sentry.io/relic…

So, you don't want to competition from large cloud providers, but you also want your source to be available to users, and you want to give them a guarantee that the software will not simply die once you stop maintaining it.

Then release your software under a source available non-compete license with the caveat that it will become open source when you stop working on it. (Basically what you have already done.)

Don't pretend it's FOSS or that it has anything to do with open source because it isn't and it doesn't. You have not made the software open until you have relinquished it to the community at large to do whatever they wish with it. Open source developers dislike this kind of marketing because it muddies the waters of what isn't and isn't free. If someone contributes to your software thinking it's free, you have mislead them to profit off their work. I don't care what you do with your code, but don't mischaracterise it. Don't give big talk about how you "believe in open source" or whatever. Say that you are source-available, and that isn't FOSS, but say no more than that. Especially do not say that you are "The Future of Open Source". That is nothing but a lie an it's obvious why real open source developers giving their time for the public good would take offence to it.

Open source is like charity. Don't call yourself a charity or associate yourself with charity unless you actually are one.

Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral

#135

Post by reedciccio »

arp242 wrote: post #100
growse wrote: post #48

The definition of "harmful free-riding" is not good, and its use to justify the license is problematic. > Consequently, the common pool resource may be under-produced, overused, or degraded. Additionally, it has been shown that despite evidence that people tend to be cooperative by nature (a prosocial behaviour), the presence of free-riders causes cooperation to deteriorate, perpetuating the free-rider problem.” Soft…

> If your business model relies on no-one else using your software to compete with you, don't open-source the software. So you would rather have completely closed source instead of Open Source-but-for-one -detail? That's some puritanical ideology-driven nonsense. Be against this license if you wish, that fine and I'll happily debate anyone about it. But this is not a position I consider valid because obviously "more…

Open Source is what allows developers to make their choices without having to ask for permissions. You can apt/pip/npm etc install and integrate pieces written by others in your own solution stack without having to call a lawyer. These non-open source licenses force you to stop and think, ask your lawyer before you build on top of them.

What's the advantage of these "semi" almost but not all the way open licenses?

Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral

#136

Post by zeeg »

James_K wrote: post #95
bentlegen wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sentry was already using BUSL (Business Source License) for 4+ years with a non-competitive Additional Use Grant. So we had already been doing this for a long time. The new license actually allows for more competition, because it has a shorter change date to permissive OSS than the aforementioned prior license (2 years vs 3 years). So another read of this is: the business model is going great, so much so that we're c…

So why don't you switch to a fully progressive license? What you're saying here is "we're putting our competitors at slightly less of a disadvantage, and that's good", so why not release under a free license and not put your competitors at any disadvantage? Either you want competition or you don't. What's offensive about this to some people is that you're trying to have the best of both worlds. Pretend that you welco…

We welcome you to spend 15 years and 10s of millions of your own money to compete with us, by writing your own software. If you think taking someone else’s software and spending ad money to sell it is “competition” I don’t know what to tell you.

Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral

#137

Post by James_K »

zeeg wrote: post #136
James_K wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why don't you switch to a fully progressive license? What you're saying here is "we're putting our competitors at slightly less of a disadvantage, and that's good", so why not release under a free license and not put your competitors at any disadvantage? Either you want competition or you don't. What's offensive about this to some people is that you're trying to have the best of both worlds. Pretend that you welco…

We welcome you to spend 15 years and 10s of millions of your own money to compete with us, by writing your own software. If you think taking someone else’s software and spending ad money to sell it is “competition” I don’t know what to tell you.

Did you even read what I wrote? I said that I don't think they need to give people access to their software. That it might even be unfair to expect them to do so. But if they don't do it, they can't call themselves FOSS. It would be unfair to expect a restaurant to sell everything at a 50% discount, but if they said they were doing that and it turned out they weren't, I'd have every right to complain.

Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral

#138

Post by zeeg »

anonacct37 wrote: post #119

I wish Sentry would stop free riding on Free Software movement by pretending their product is part of it. Their product isn't Free Soft anymore. They feel that they can increase revenue with a more restrictive license, a business move that doesn't require this cathedral and bazaar white washing.

We haven’t been “FOSS” for many years and don’t pretend to be. What’s your point?

We also don’t ask you to build our software for us, and instead give it away for free.

Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral

#139

Post by arp242 »

reedciccio wrote: post #135
arp242 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your business model relies on no-one else using your software to compete with you, don't open-source the software. So you would rather have completely closed source instead of Open Source-but-for-one -detail? That's some puritanical ideology-driven nonsense. Be against this license if you wish, that fine and I'll happily debate anyone about it. But this is not a position I consider valid because obviously "more…

Open Source is what allows developers to make their choices without having to ask for permissions. You can apt/pip/npm etc install and integrate pieces written by others in your own solution stack without having to call a lawyer. These non-open source licenses force you to stop and think, ask your lawyer before you build on top of them. What's the advantage of these "semi" almost but not all the way open licenses?

These things aren't in apt (other than non-free repos), so that's not really a problem. I'm not sure about the pip and npm policy on these types of things, but Sentry isn't a library you would add, so it's not really a problem. But it's fine to keep Sentry out of pip as far as I'm concerned.

> You can apt/pip/npm etc install and integrate pieces written by others in your own solution stack without having to call a lawyer. These non-open source licenses force you to stop and think, ask your lawyer before you build on top of them.

Try doing that with AGPL, or even just the GPL, or CDDL, or any number of licenses. There's tons of OSD/Four Freedoms compliant licenses that come with conditions; you really do need to look at them and can't "just" do whatever and already need to think about it.

And personally I really have trouble especially with the GPL licenses; try reading them and determining what exactly they mandate in various edge cases. We have tons of people clarifying all this (which may or may not be applicable to your situation/jurisdiction), but going on just the license is often very non-obvious.

> What's the advantage of these "semi" almost but not all the way open licenses?

I can fix bugs for starters. From a purely pragmatic point of view this kind of "I can fix my own problems" is >95% of the value for me.

I can easily self-host (including some hacked-up version which addresses some specific needs).

I can see what the code does if something is unclear.

There's tons of advantages. The only limitation is "don't compete with us". There's probably a few edge-cases, but practically speaking almost everyone is unaffected and they can treat Sentry as "just MIT" (or Apache) for almost all practical intents and purposes. People talk as if there are all sorts of caveats and booby traps here, but there aren't.

Re: FSL: A License for the Bazaar, Not the Cathedral

#140

Post by mcny »

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #65
mcny wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What are your thoughts on AGPL? Is it not good enough? Do you think (lets say it out loud because we all know what we are talking about) Amazon Web Services will have advantage over you if you picked AGPL as your license? At the end of the day, I think your sales team has to earn its salary. It can't just phone it in like (I assume) Microsoft sales does with Microsoft SQL Server. Why isn't AGPL good enough? Genuinely…

> What are your thoughts on AGPL? Is it not good enough? I'm generally not a fan of GPL based licensed because it means that you create a massive dis-balance between the original copyright holder (who can dual license for commercialization) and everybody else. It might be fine for Sentry or another SaaS business, but then you cannot even take pieces of code and use it in another project that cannot be GPL licensed be…

> I'm generally not a fan of GPL based licensed because it means that you create a massive dis-balance between the original copyright holder (who can dual license for commercialization) and everybody else. It might be fine for Sentry or another SaaS business, but then you cannot even take pieces of code and use it in another project that cannot be GPL licensed because for instance it needs to go the app store etc.

> GPL (and AGPL in particular) is considered such a tainted environment that many steer away from it entirely. AGPL also is from the v3 family of GPL licenses which have outright bans in many commercial environments. But GPL in general is a too complex topic to address in a HN comment for me.

This is very helpful, thank you. I have no insider information about elastic or sentry. Everything I know about the whole thing is from comments such as from HN. What I am hearing from you is that you don't see big cloud providers such as AWS as a threat but rather as an insurance policy so as users you can feel relatively safe in picking a SaaS product knowing that in the future (two years from now?) if the vendor were to go tits up, you can still have someone else who will step in and fill the void. I thought your intention was to make it as difficult as possible for another SaaS provider to compete against you but... clearly not? I appreciate the thoughtfulness of all of this and the pain of SaaS customers because just having the source code isn't enough. Often times, I am simply not qualified to run something like sentry myself and it is a matter of either spending tens of thousands of dollars a year on a SaaS or spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on another dedicated employee.

That being said, what I am reading from your comment is that the problem with GPL at least from the perspective of the user is all about perception and not about substance.

From what I understand as a hobbyist, I can essentially disregard licenses altogether. I am not distributing anything. You could license flask as Oracle Evil License (not actual name of the license, just making it up) and it wouldn't matter as a hobbyist because all I am doing is learning about flask.

What I mean is AGPLv3 should be fine for companies who are not SaaS providers and those who are SaaS providers, should contribute back.

What makes you not a fan of GPL?

Post reply on HN