Lack of leadership in open source results in source-available licenses

>> “storage software and hosting software” changed to “host orchestration software”

>seems to be fairly reasonable though, unless I've misunderstood things once again?

It's better, though note that the terms in the list referenced there aren't strictly defined.

>> If this version is approved by OSI, we plan to apply it to the next release of our MongoDB software, which is currently available under version 1.0.

>so it seems they really do just want to address the current loophole in the AGPL.

Sure, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt on that. But the fact that they haven't switched over by now signals to me that they're not yet confident in the newer version of the license; if they're not, I can't say I am either.

And it's worth noting that SSPL v2 was withdrawn from the OSI review process back in March: https://opensource.org/LicenseReview032019

These are the bullets from the article:

It takes open-source code produced by others, runs it as a commercial service and gives nothing back to the commercial entity that produces and maintains the open source, thereby intercepting the monetization of the open source.

It forks projects and forcibly wrestles control away from the commercial entity that produces and maintains the open-source projects, as it did in the case of Elasticsearch.

It hijacks open-source APIs and places them on top of its own proprietary solutions, thereby siphoning off customers from the open-source project to its own proprietary solution, as it did with the MongoDB APIs.

Check, check, check. Remember RMS' screed? "Only the writing of software should be paid for, the using of it is an inherent right of everyone and should not make any remuneration requirements on the user."

Back when he wrote that he was mad because companiies wrote code and charged big fees just to use it. He felt that was unfair. But now the shoe is on the other foot, and big companies are just "users" they aren't writing the software, so why should they pay for it? And while RMS was happy to have an architect use CAD software that someone else paid to have written, to design the houses that they sold for big bucks to their own clients, I don't think he thought it all the way through.

The missing bit here is that the "using of software" has a value. Whether you are using a better C compiler than your competitors so your compiled code runs faster than theirs, or you are using a distributed database to offer a scaled up database service that is impractical for an individual to equip and maintain. The whole reason people paid for software in the first place is because it accelerated the value they could create. And when that delta in value, that was worth significant money to them. Still is. That is why electronic CAD software still gets big bucks from its users, the same with packages like Adobe studio.

And guess what? When you use someone's software, and you are getting additional value that is accruing to you, if you didn't pay anything to the person who created it and maintains it, they feel cheated. Surprised? I am not.

When the software manufacturers of old found people that used their software without paying for it, they called them Pirates, and Crooks, and all manner of ill names. They turned to technology, and licensing legalize, to create ways they could pursue those people to make them pay. Not unlike the folks at Redis changing their licenses to make it harder for people like Amazon to "pirate" their software. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

There is nothing "free" about Free Software as RMS envisions it, it is just a structural way for the users of the software to rip off the people who wrote it by capturing all of the value gained by using that software to develop or provide a product or service.

It has always been true that software vendors were often extortionate in their pricing while escaping all liability by disclaiming the software did anything. If you fixed that problem, then we will be in a much better place.

I recommend taking a look at the API Copyleft License https://github.com/kemitchell/api-copyleft-license/blob/mast...

My take on "Spirit of Open Source" is basically: (1) I need this software, (2) I wrote this software and it has satisfied my needs, (3) I'm a nice guy so anyone else who wants to use this can use it free of any requirements whatsoever. Hence I use the MIT license.

I don't care if Amazon or Facebook gets rich off of it. I don't care if Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton get elected based on it. I don't care if the Russians use it. It's a tool, and like a hammer can be used for good or ill, and I disclaim all responsibility for what stupid people do with it. I don't care if somebody forks it and 99% of people start using the fork instead of my original. All I care is that I got what I wanted out of it, I hope perhaps that some other people use it so that they can help contribute and maintain it, and perhaps I'm hoping for a tiny bit of respect and recognition. My expectations are grounded and realistic: very few people will likely use it; I don't have a hope in hell of either making money off of it or of changing the world because of it. And I'm completely satisfied with that. In fact I'm more than satisfied, I feel wonderful because millions of other people are doing the same things with their software and just about anything I could possibly want is out there somewhere. Hence a sense of community and of good will.

Others folks (such as the author of the article) have different "spirits" most of which I find distasteful, including those who have a stick up their arse about big orporations and want to add restrictions about commercial use or about derivative works, those who think their software is God's gift to the world and they thus deserve something for it, those who want to control what others are allowed to do, those who want to change the basic ways that the world works, and those who come from a place of greed and regret. I don't share in any of that outrage, not even a little bit, and so this article (to me at least) is complete rubbish.

Most companies use open source because the permissiveness gives them optionality that they value highly, and will even invest resources in supporting, but don't expect to exercise in most cases. If you eliminate that optionality (e.g. AGPL) then it erodes the value proposition of open source for companies and thus their interest in supporting it. This is the reason many companies will not touch AGPL, it eliminates most of the value they expected to get from the transaction. And without company support, open source development would languish.

This is the challenge, and it doesn't have an easy answer. Without optionality, open source offers little to corporate users.