Rethinking Open Source Licenses
fermyon.com
Rethinking Open Source Licenses
1–10 of 23 posts
Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses
#2pretty much nothing about rethinking licenses specifically, or how that involves AI. whole lotta nothing, just 'trade secrets good'
Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses
#3An interesting take on running an open-source business, with a lot of references to HashiCorp's situation.
The tl;dr is to evaluate each piece you write, to see who it helps if open-sourced, and keep it closed if it only helps your competitors.
I suspect we'll see more decisions like this, given Amazon's penchant for creating whole services based off existing FOSS.
Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses
#4An interesting take on running an open-source business, with a lot of references to HashiCorp's situation. The tl;dr is to evaluate each piece you write, to see who it helps if open-sourced, and keep it closed if it only helps your competitors. I suspect we'll see more decisions like this, given Amazon's penchant for creating whole services based off existing FOSS.
Now if everybody followed that strategy, where would we be?
Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses
#5An interesting take on running an open-source business, with a lot of references to HashiCorp's situation. The tl;dr is to evaluate each piece you write, to see who it helps if open-sourced, and keep it closed if it only helps your competitors. I suspect we'll see more decisions like this, given Amazon's penchant for creating whole services based off existing FOSS.
Now if everybody followed that strategy, where would we be?
Lots of FOSS that can be used by individuals, tinkerers, SMBs, but not so much megacorps?
Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses
#6This gave me a headache. First:
> I have been part of the free and open source movement for the entirety of my 25+ year career in software. In the late 90s, I was one of the first people to advocate in my org for switching from proprietary tools like the Intel C compiler to open source alternatives like gcc.
I’m happy to give the author the benefit of the doubt on their contributions to FOSS beyond what’s stated in the article, but taken at face value, they are trying to establish a tone of authority by establishing that they championed… using someone else’s free or open source software rather than paying for something? That might be interesting if led to a frank discussion on the value and cost of FOSS vs contribution or funding vis-à-vis general sustainability, but it’s not.
Second, the term “open source startup” makes my skin crawl. If you’re a business focused on making profit, you’re just a commercial entity that happens to put out some open source stuff, using it to lure customers to your actual business. While personally I’m wary of this model as a potential trap, whatever, it’s fine. But this is not the only way FOSS gets done, and I don’t see any rethinking going on in the article.
Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses
#7[dead]
Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses
#8"Come join the Fermyon Discord community!"
The "die-hard free software enthusiast" inside me made it through the whole article, and was already low-level triggered, and then really got shot into the stratosphere with this down the bottom.
I'm not saying I've a better idea for how to reconcile software freedom, noxious capitalism, and the necessity of people who love software development and related areas getting rooves and bread, but...
The article does read a bit like an oil company telling you they love the planet, and that's why they have to keep mining it for oil as they work hard on renewable energy on the sides. "We're sorry".
Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses
#9This gave me a headache. First: > I have been part of the free and open source movement for the entirety of my 25+ year career in software. In the late 90s, I was one of the first people to advocate in my org for switching from proprietary tools like the Intel C compiler to open source alternatives like gcc. I’m happy to give the author the benefit of the doubt on their contributions to FOSS beyond what’s stated in t…
> they are trying to establish a tone of authority by establishing that they championed… using someone else’s free or open source software rather than paying for something?
At that time, there was a lot of mistrust of FOSS (and the GPL in particular) in commercial organisations. That extended to even _using_ FOSS, and particularly something like a compiler, whose output "might be contaminated" by the FOSS licence.
That changed, slowly, in part because there were dedicated advocates who addressed people's concerns, showed them the actual licence text, etc, etc. It was a valuable contribution to the success of the concept of FOSS beyond just developers.
From today's perspective, I understand your concern, but perhaps this might help explain the OP's claim.
Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses
#10This gave me a headache. First: > I have been part of the free and open source movement for the entirety of my 25+ year career in software. In the late 90s, I was one of the first people to advocate in my org for switching from proprietary tools like the Intel C compiler to open source alternatives like gcc. I’m happy to give the author the benefit of the doubt on their contributions to FOSS beyond what’s stated in t…
> they are trying to establish a tone of authority by establishing that they championed… using someone else’s free or open source software rather than paying for something? At that time, there was a lot of mistrust of FOSS (and the GPL in particular) in commercial organisations. That extended to even _using_ FOSS, and particularly something like a compiler, whose output "might be contaminated" by the FOSS licence. Th…
It ain't nuthin, but it ain't much.