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

Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 164 posts

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#111

Post by prepend »

Pannoniae wrote: post #110
sangnoir wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> None of these blogposts (including this one) have any realistic solution to the problem of making OSS software and being able to live from it... Should OSS solve that "problem"? Free software predates billion-dollar OSS / open-core companies, it also doesn't require the maintainer directly earn a living from it. Perhaps the era of OSS megacorps and the concomitant VC/startup dreams is setting, as these large, forme…

>Should OSS solve that "problem"? If you don't want a cyberpunk-like dystopia of megacorps controlling everything, yes. This is not just affecting the VC-funded startups' profitability but it also affects ordinary software developers' lifestyle businesses too. Sure, the core principles of OSS don't require that you'd be able to earn money from your work, but then perhaps it is OSS which is not fit for purpose, not th…

> The AGPL is still not restrictive enough because you can resell the software without contributing anything back if you don't modify it

Why would you want to restrict reselling? If you want free software then you’re going to have reselling. If you don’t want reselling, then don’t make your software free/open source.

I’m not sure why people are getting mixed up. Anyone can make proprietary software and restrict all they want. There’s tons of commercial software. But it doesn’t have the features of free/open source.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#112

Post by Macha »

goku12 wrote: post #25
iforgotpassword wrote: post #7

> By working on a project with a CLA, where you sign away your code, you're giving carte blanche for the company to take away your freedom to use their software. Ok it's been a while so I don't remember the details or how it played out, but when Linux introduced a CoC, there were people who contributed to the kernel in the past that threatened to withdraw their code from the kernel, which would've been a nightmare to…

I think that the developer can demand a withdrawal of their contribution, though I don't know what happens to the code that's already published under a FOSS license. Regardless, many projects including the Linux kernel require the developer to sign off their contributions under the terms of the 'developer certificate of origin' [1]. While the developer retains the copyright to the contribution under DCO, they acknowl…

The main purpose of a DCO is to take the portion of a CLA that guarantees the developer actually has a right to license the code under the project's license, as it's something that some users worry about using the software without. Basically so if someone copies some code from one of the Windows leaks into Linux and Microsoft comes to sue the Linux Foundation over it, they can point to it and say "we had legal sign off they had the right to license this code, please sue them instead".

In terms of irrevocability, the DCO is not that different from most open source licenses who themselves claim to be perpetual. The arguments for exceptions to that being true all either apply to e.g. both the GPL and the DCO, or to neither.

Generally the consensus is that an irrevocable license grant means irrevocable, though there are some concerns about examples set by e.g. the precedent that lets artists claw back rights from record labels after 30 years.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#113

Post by wmf »

8organicbits wrote: post #107
bsnnkv wrote: post #87

I recently re-licensed a large open source project from MIT to a source-available license which restricts redistribution after someone decided to fork it, completely rearrange the code and introduce subtle breaking interface changes, and then package it up with basic Electron UI for sale on a platform digital store. I don't know what the answer is, but the OSI definition is clearly not built to withstand this era of…

Trademark law should handle this (at least in some countries). Register a trademark and then send a cease and desist to the fork as they are creating confusion in the marketplace by distributing something they created using your registered name. Perhaps consider using Apache 2.0 license, section six has language that specifically addresses trademarks.

A lot of open source devs are allergic to promoting their work so owning the trademark won't help them. For example, the above developer could have created their own official GUI and put it in the app store but they won't. Realistically the value is in GUIs, SaaS, marketing, etc. not in backend code.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#114

Post by Pannoniae »

prepend wrote: post #111
Pannoniae wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Should OSS solve that "problem"? If you don't want a cyberpunk-like dystopia of megacorps controlling everything, yes. This is not just affecting the VC-funded startups' profitability but it also affects ordinary software developers' lifestyle businesses too. Sure, the core principles of OSS don't require that you'd be able to earn money from your work, but then perhaps it is OSS which is not fit for purpose, not th…

> The AGPL is still not restrictive enough because you can resell the software without contributing anything back if you don't modify it Why would you want to restrict reselling? If you want free software then you’re going to have reselling. If you don’t want reselling, then don’t make your software free/open source. I’m not sure why people are getting mixed up. Anyone can make proprietary software and restrict all t…

>Why would you want to restrict reselling?

Depends on what your philosophy is. You believe in the software commons and the free sharing of software? You would want software to remain as a public good so no one can profit from it exclusively.

Are you a business who made some software? You don't want others to resell it because it's your work, you made it and you don't want others to freeload.

>If you don’t want reselling, then don’t make your software free/open source.

Sure, and the consequences of this will be much more all-rights-reserved proprietary software. A huge loss to users and developers.

>But it doesn’t have the features of free/open source.

Yes it does. Just because it doesn't conform to all tenets of the OSI definition, many useful things are still kept. The most obvious is the right to view the source code - which is highly liberating in an age where many vendors lock their systems down or try to offer everything as a SaaS where you don't even see the binaries.

You usually also have the right to modify the software under most of these licences - you are the user but you find a bug in the software, you don't need to wait for the vendor to fix it, you can fix it and share your modifications to other users (either paid or not).

You can also have the right to contribute changes if contributions are allowed, which is also a positive for everyone.

There are many freedoms which can be granted without necessarily going for a maximalist open-source approach but still preserving the right to exploit your own work and prevent others from exploiting it.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#115

Post by yencabulator »

GardenLetter27 wrote: post #97
buildfocus wrote: post #47

There are uses for CLAs besides rug pulls. For example, if you want to offer software as AGPL, accept community contributions, but be able to _also_ offer a non-AGPL option to paying customers (who effectively pay to be allowed to integrate the license without themselves being subject to licensing risk). Quite a few big orgs have a full ban on internal use of AGPL software so this can be very valuable. That requires…

Even just stuff like releasing a GPL'd game on Steam or consoles can have the same issue if you need to keep some parts proprietary.

There's no such thing as a "GPL'd game with proprietary parts". GPL was designed to prevent that.

You can say "Steam and game consoles only allow publishing software with proprietary components", but don't blame that on GPL.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#116

Post by yencabulator »

piaste wrote: post #73
wmf wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is abuse of the AGPL and open source in name only.

Richard Stallman, of all people, is not as intransigent as you. > I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has made it possible for important programs to become free software. > [..] [S]elling exceptions permits limited embedding of the code in proprietary software, but the [non-copyleft] X11 license goes even further, permi…

The continuous-rugpull part of demanding CLAs is selling other people's work as proprietary.

You'll hear much less complaining if you're selling your own work under a second license.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#117

Post by tecleandor »

davisr wrote: post #61
radlad wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've piqued my interest. Can you share more? Do you have a blog post about your product and how you sell it?

I don't have a post about it, but the equation is pretty simple: good cross-platform software + good documentation + responsive development = good product. The trick is to write good software -- the license doesn't matter so much. But, making it free/libre is competitively advantageous, all else considered. Some customers have told me they would not have considered paying for a proprietary option. My project is calle…

Thanks! I bought it like a month ago! Haven't had time to use it much, but it came handy to downgrade my reMarkable 2 :)

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#118

Post by [deleted] »

Pannoniae wrote: post #114
prepend wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The AGPL is still not restrictive enough because you can resell the software without contributing anything back if you don't modify it Why would you want to restrict reselling? If you want free software then you’re going to have reselling. If you don’t want reselling, then don’t make your software free/open source. I’m not sure why people are getting mixed up. Anyone can make proprietary software and restrict all t…

>Why would you want to restrict reselling? Depends on what your philosophy is. You believe in the software commons and the free sharing of software? You would want software to remain as a public good so no one can profit from it exclusively. Are you a business who made some software? You don't want others to resell it because it's your work, you made it and you don't want others to freeload. >If you don’t want resell…

[deleted]

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#119

Post by sangnoir »

Pannoniae wrote: post #114
prepend wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The AGPL is still not restrictive enough because you can resell the software without contributing anything back if you don't modify it Why would you want to restrict reselling? If you want free software then you’re going to have reselling. If you don’t want reselling, then don’t make your software free/open source. I’m not sure why people are getting mixed up. Anyone can make proprietary software and restrict all t…

>Why would you want to restrict reselling? Depends on what your philosophy is. You believe in the software commons and the free sharing of software? You would want software to remain as a public good so no one can profit from it exclusively. Are you a business who made some software? You don't want others to resell it because it's your work, you made it and you don't want others to freeload. >If you don’t want resell…

> Depends on what your philosophy is. You believe in the software commons and the free sharing of software? You would want software to remain as a public good so no one can profit from it exclusively.

> Are you a business who made some software? You don't want others to resell it because it's your work, you made it and you don't want others to freeload.

I cant help but notice that you assume everyone uses money as a measure of desirable/undesirable outcomes. Whenever I publish a library/project with a GPL license (my preferred license), it's so that others can use it. I have a well paying job that's enabled in part by others sharing their work[1], so I let the "freeloaders" have at it - I too am one, after all.

At the time I release the software, my problem is adequately solved: I already did the work , maybe someone else may benefit. Creating/sharing value with others is the point - I don't mind if someone else sells it : if they abide by the license, that means I can sell something identical for half of whatever they sold it for if I suddenly felt competitive.

1. I'm amazed that I can use Linux, git, hypervisors, orchestrators, various computers and interpreter, libraries, ops tools and more all for free,and with the ability to pry them open and make any changes I want! How frigging cool is that?! I'm compelled to pay it forward in any way I can.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#120

Post by busterarm »

matheusmoreira wrote: post #108
layer8 wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You cut off “if you care about what happens to them afterwards”. It’s perfectly fine for somebody to just give software away as long they’re fine that someone else will make money off it. You don’t seem to be fine with it, but others are.

I've seen quite a few of these people become very bitter over the years. Taken for fools and exploited. They were supposedly "fine" with it at first. At some point it must have hit them. I don't blame them. Their reaction is understandable. I blame whoever came up with this "permissive licensing" psyop.

That's not correct though. Charity is a valid thing.

Expectations-based giving should honestly always be frowned upon. Once you give something up it's no longer in your control. If somebody has a problem with that, it's actually them that's the problem.

I think a lot of folks don't think through the licenses they choose before they use them. They never really thought about if they'd be mad if somebody else commercialized their code. You give up that right when you chose that license but that's okay. Licensing is a choice.

You're also free to use AGPL if you want or even go proprietary -- but don't blame open source licenses if you chose them by mistake.

Post reply on HN