"Because we like money."
The audacity, right?
[deleted]
ScyllaDB – Why We're Moving to a Source Available License
11–20 of 35 posts
Re: ScyllaDB – Why We're Moving to a Source Available License
#12In reality open source is very difficult to build a business around, which means that software can’t exist long term. It’s not about not wanting to be open source, it’s about realising that you and your employees livelihoods are being abused by people who see open source and take it to mean they shouldn’t pay. Especially egregious when your competitors take your work and build a closed sourced business around it.
> people who see open source and take it to mean they shouldn’t pay
This is the primary appeal of open source software to most businesses - free software and free labor.
Re: ScyllaDB – Why We're Moving to a Source Available License
#13"Because we like money."
The audacity, right?
Not the word I'd have used. Weird take.
I doubt anyone criticizing is doing so because of "How dare they want money?"
Which just begs the question, why did you think that? That take just exposes a complete missing of the point of open source software and why (honest) people invest their time in it.
There are others who just want the caché and benefits that come with producing open source, but without the annoying actually being open source parts.
If you want to get paid for renting out copies of software, just do that honestly. If you want to make the world a better place and pay it forward for all the free stuff you were given, then do that honestly.
But wanting the benefits of sainthood without having to volunteer at the soup kitchen, no, audacity is not the word for that.
And merely wanting a comfortable living is not audacious, and no one who's not an idiot thinks it is, and is actuall othogonal to whether you have any integrity wrt open source licenses.
You can want, and have, that comfortable living either way.
Re: ScyllaDB – Why We're Moving to a Source Available License
#14[flagged]
Re: ScyllaDB – Why We're Moving to a Source Available License
#15In reality open source is very difficult to build a business around, which means that software can’t exist long term. It’s not about not wanting to be open source, it’s about realising that you and your employees livelihoods are being abused by people who see open source and take it to mean they shouldn’t pay. Especially egregious when your competitors take your work and build a closed sourced business around it.
Abused doesn't make sense, open source means I made this thing and I'm giving it away because I think other people might find it useful. Take this and build something proprietary around is one of the stated goals of OSS, no one is upset AWS is offering hosted Linux.
Nobody will touch your product if it's not OSS doesn't mean you should call it OSS and then rug pull. Build it proprietary from the beginning you cowards. The people who do this are the same as the corporate shills who infiltrate subcultures to monetize them and ultimately destroy the community in the process. If you don't actually share the values of the community you're trying to join, then don't join it.
This little SV "growth hack" where the success of your OSS project is the proving ground to get funding has to die. It's turning a high-trust community into a low-trust one.
Re: ScyllaDB – Why We're Moving to a Source Available License
#16In reality open source is very difficult to build a business around, which means that software can’t exist long term. It’s not about not wanting to be open source, it’s about realising that you and your employees livelihoods are being abused by people who see open source and take it to mean they shouldn’t pay. Especially egregious when your competitors take your work and build a closed sourced business around it.
Abused doesn't make sense, open source means I made this thing and I'm giving it away because I think other people might find it useful. Take this and build something proprietary around is one of the stated goals of OSS, no one is upset AWS is offering hosted Linux. Nobody will touch your product if it's not OSS doesn't mean you should call it OSS and then rug pull. Build it proprietary from the beginning you cowards…
It makes sense to anyone who has tried to build open source software as a sustainable business.
It doesn’t make sense to people who contribute small hobby projects or work as researchers / are government funded, which means ultimately paid for by businesses and consumers thereof.
Re: ScyllaDB – Why We're Moving to a Source Available License
#17In reality open source is very difficult to build a business around, which means that software can’t exist long term. It’s not about not wanting to be open source, it’s about realising that you and your employees livelihoods are being abused by people who see open source and take it to mean they shouldn’t pay. Especially egregious when your competitors take your work and build a closed sourced business around it.
> people who see open source and take it to mean they shouldn’t pay This is the primary appeal of open source software to most businesses - free software and free labor.
Correct.
An open source project that doesn’t receive in kind development cost reduction benefit from free contributors should not stay open source.
Re: ScyllaDB – Why We're Moving to a Source Available License
#18Open Source means knowledge dissemination.
If they did not get back from community it may mean that their code was bad for contributions.
Sorry!
They can keep the unmaintainable mess to themselves because then, the code is available but not really open.
License is one thing for openness, code quality is the other.
Re: ScyllaDB – Why We're Moving to a Source Available License
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
Abused doesn't make sense, open source means I made this thing and I'm giving it away because I think other people might find it useful. Take this and build something proprietary around is one of the stated goals of OSS, no one is upset AWS is offering hosted Linux. Nobody will touch your product if it's not OSS doesn't mean you should call it OSS and then rug pull. Build it proprietary from the beginning you cowards…
It makes sense to anyone who has tried to build open source software as a sustainable business. It doesn’t make sense to people who contribute small hobby projects or work as researchers / are government funded, which means ultimately paid for by businesses and consumers thereof.
Then don't? This isn't that hard. Microsoft has been saying you can't build a business around OSS since its inception. And they're right. As evidenced by every OSS software business having to drop the OSS.
OSS in business works well when you make your money on something other than the software. Because you're giving it way in it's entirety. Facebook with React, Google with k8s, Twitter with Redis. Once you need the software itself to generate revenue it all falls apart.
How many businesses whose core competency is writing software realizing that there's no 1st party advantage to hosting and AWS is better than you at it will it take for those businesses to not literally give away the only asset the company has with any value?
Re: ScyllaDB – Why We're Moving to a Source Available License
#20See this is tricky in my mind, because it doesn't seem like this was just a move to stop AWS/GCP cloud hosting Scylla. That was already solved with the AGPL license. This seems like they are just trying to stop any usage of ScyllaDB that isn't paid (outside of a relatively small free tier). I suppose its not a big deal, since you can always migrate to cassandra for open source forever, but definitely unfortunate for any individuals/organizations that can't afford this upgrade.