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

Rethinking Open Source Licenses

fermyon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 23 posts

Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses

#11

Post by notarobot123 »

We haven't talked enough about the second-order effects of open source on the economics of programming as a profession. I'm glad to see that starting to change[1].

Open source makes it harder to make a living as a programmer (at least an author of libraries, tools and infrastructure). Keeping server utilities closed source while still allowing clients to have full access to the source for client tools and self-hosting utilities seems like a pragmatic approach to the user-centric principles of open source.

This way, companies can continue to maintain some competitive advantage with their own investment into closed source code while still enabling users to own, control and contribute to software that runs on their machine.

The crucial element here is maintaining low switching costs by allowing a marketplace for _real_ competition on quality and cost of compatible services (as well as allowing self-hosting). This is the kind of software freedom that actually benefits users.

[1] - Evan Czaplicki's talk at Strange Loop this year made some similar points: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZ3w_jec1v8

Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses

#12

Post by Brian_K_White »

Ugh. Just from the title you already know what it will be, and it was. You don't need to read it.

They want to sell software.

They just for some reason also want open source cred, and want to blame the concept of open source for somehow failing to give them a living.

You want to sell software? Fine, sell software. But just do it and own it.

No rethinking of anything happened here.

Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses

#13

Post by Brian_K_White »

ncruces wrote: post #5
atoav wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

lots of foss thats not useful or valuable to anyone, big or small.

Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses

#14

Post by pjmlp »

notarobot123 wrote: post #11

We haven't talked enough about the second-order effects of open source on the economics of programming as a profession. I'm glad to see that starting to change[1]. Open source makes it harder to make a living as a programmer (at least an author of libraries, tools and infrastructure). Keeping server utilities closed source while still allowing clients to have full access to the source for client tools and self-hostin…

For a short time I was all about being a FOSS zealot using M$ on email signatures and such, because I had a confortable university student life where most bills were paid by someone else, then I realised what it means to have to pay bills for ourselves.

People are realising that PD and Shareware make more sense when one wants to make a living from software, the alternative being putting everything behind SaaS walls.

Not every use case can be done selling hardware to go alongside the software, consulting, conference talks, selling books (which are often pirated by those that should donate to FOSS)

Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses

#15

Post by notarobot123 »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #12

Ugh. Just from the title you already know what it will be, and it was. You don't need to read it. They want to sell software. They just for some reason also want open source cred, and want to blame the concept of open source for somehow failing to give them a living. You want to sell software? Fine, sell software. But just do it and own it. No rethinking of anything happened here.

It's a rethink from the starting point of "everything should always be open source"

I think what's mentioned here is a pragmatic approach for software-centric businesses who want to be open-source but have realized that it doesn't really work without opening yourself to getting "Jeff'd" (ripped off by Amazon).

Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses

#16

Post by ncruces »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #13
ncruces wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of FOSS that can be used by individuals, tinkerers, SMBs, but not so much megacorps?

lots of foss thats not useful or valuable to anyone, big or small.

Is SQLite not useful because some of their test harnesses are private and they charge for certification when it gets used for avionics?

Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses

#17

Post by Brian_K_White »

ncruces wrote: post #16
Brian_K_White wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

lots of foss thats not useful or valuable to anyone, big or small.

Is SQLite not useful because some of their test harnesses are private and they charge for certification when it gets used for avionics?

Is sqlite the world? Does any single example invalidate anything if it is not representative of the majority?

If sqlite is one example, then the "open source" displaylink drivers are another. (they are nothing, they just create shim for a blob)

Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses

#18

Post by ncruces »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #17
ncruces wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is SQLite not useful because some of their test harnesses are private and they charge for certification when it gets used for avionics?

Is sqlite the world? Does any single example invalidate anything if it is not representative of the majority? If sqlite is one example, then the "open source" displaylink drivers are another. (they are nothing, they just create shim for a blob)

No. But it's definitely much closer to what's described in the article than binary blob drivers.

Complaining that a company only makes available the source to everything you'll ever want to run in your computer, but not the tools certify it for avionics (SQLite), or to scale it horizontally to 100s of nodes (Fermyon Spin), is not the same as not giving you the source to display drivers.

Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses

#19

Post by Brian_K_White »

ncruces wrote: post #18
Brian_K_White wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is sqlite the world? Does any single example invalidate anything if it is not representative of the majority? If sqlite is one example, then the "open source" displaylink drivers are another. (they are nothing, they just create shim for a blob)

No. But it's definitely much closer to what's described in the article than binary blob drivers. Complaining that a company only makes available the source to everything you'll ever want to run in your computer, but not the tools certify it for avionics (SQLite), or to scale it horizontally to 100s of nodes (Fermyon Spin), is not the same as not giving you the source to display drivers.

I'm not complaining about anything (other than the article, but not because they want to sell their software).

But is a fact that a lot of companies that want to straddle both sides of the fence, the open side is kinda crap. It's also true that a lot is not crap, but so what?

Another random example I happen to be familiar with, a long time ago a company essentially took over hylafax, and what do you know, ever since then the open parts got practically no useful or valuable advancement, and ifax commercialized such trivial to implement but end user valuable nicities as being able to associate a fax job with a db record. hylafax+ was forked and has been the good useful version ever since.

ifax didn't really hurt anyone since the fork was possible and actually happened, and has been great, but they didn't help either. they provide essentially no value to the open source ecosystem in trade for their ownership and commercialization of hylafax. I don't know if they ever tried to write a blog post like this one though. If not, then they were at least more honest, ish. It's not that honest to claim to be managing and caring for some open source project, while for some mysterious reason not accepting prs for features that compete with ones you sell in your commercial version of the same thing, for 20 years.

Re: Rethinking Open Source Licenses

#20

Post by Brian_K_White »

notarobot123 wrote: post #15
Brian_K_White wrote: post #12

Ugh. Just from the title you already know what it will be, and it was. You don't need to read it. They want to sell software. They just for some reason also want open source cred, and want to blame the concept of open source for somehow failing to give them a living. You want to sell software? Fine, sell software. But just do it and own it. No rethinking of anything happened here.

It's a rethink from the starting point of "everything should always be open source" I think what's mentioned here is a pragmatic approach for software-centric businesses who want to be open-source but have realized that it doesn't really work without opening yourself to getting "Jeff'd" (ripped off by Amazon).

I was going to say that no one said everything had to be only open source, but of course one person did say that, but hardly anyone else.

And getting Jeff'd is not a problem. If you care about getting Jeff'd, then you simply want to sell software instead of create software. So go forth and sell, and don't pretend all the people who wrote those open source licences and live by them just somehow don't get the realities of life. They do. In fact they get things people like these guys don't. It's fine to have that weakness and just decide to sell under the traditional 80's terms, but don't pretend it's required and forced upon you and anyone else who chooses not to do the same somehow doesn't also live in reality.

Post reply on HN