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

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

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 239 posts

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

#191

Post by galaxyLogic »

karmakaze wrote: post #167
tango12 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. We had to change our license from AGPL to Apache to make sure enterprise adoption was frictionless because there’s often a blanket ban on AGPL. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20064281

Hmm, wonder if there's something we can take away from this. Let's say the latest major release is AGPL (or newer dominant copyleft) and the previous major release is more enterprise friendly licensed with those offering paid support handling the security and maintenance of them. This means that the community can continue to develop and use the latest and greatest. Not perfect but it might work in some cases.

Sounds like an interesting idea. How about taking it even further and say what you say above but then also provide the latest and greatest release also as a commercial version. Then companies who want the latest will pay for it and OS community gets the latest with AGPL, while companies who prefer MIT license get a version that works but is not the latest or greatest.

That would be much like paying for support, getting the latest and greatest earlier than those who don't pay for it.

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

#192

Post by roenxi »

tolmasky wrote: post #47

If you make your project open source, your goal should be maximizing people using it, not maximizing how much you profit from it. I know they may seem identical, but they aren't: Apple makes a lot of money by making software that has huge roadblocks to using it. And as many people are now realizing, open source has the ability to not make lots of money by making it incredibly easy for anyone to use. We all benefit gr…

> If you make your project open source, your goal should be maximizing people using it, not maximizing how much you profit from it.

Dangerous ground telling people what their goals should be. There is no reason a person shouldn't try to maximise their profits from open source strategies. The Linux example is not a strong one - lots of the kernel devs are for-profit and Linus Torvalds made a fortune [0] - likely linked to his involvement in Linux. With benefit of hindsight it is hard to see how he could have better optimised for profit.

The key insight for commercial OSS is that maximising profit does not necessarily mean maximising your paying userbase size. 10 users paying $10,000 a month easily trumps 1000 users paying $10. And going OSS as a commercial strategy (eg, Red Hat's classic model) gives competitive advantages if you can lever it - no risk of being undercut by a cheaper software package, ability be very selective in who you offer support to and an obvious strategy for wheedling in to new markets.

In the initial rush where computers were being changed out every 5 years (pre 2003 era), having software to sell was where the advantage was. Now the industries are starting to mature and that is no longer as obvious it once was. The money seems to be in support and ongoing relationship fees, which are very amenable to OSS.

So basically, if someone's goal is to maximise profits they should consider making their software open source. Especially if they are breaking in to an incumbent's market.

[0] https://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/celebrity-business/...

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

#193

Post by galaxyLogic »

jimktrains2 wrote: post #159
msbarnett wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why did they create SSPL when AGPL already existed? Because they were already using the AGPL, and it did precisely Nothing to stop Amazon from turning into a massive free-rider who undermined the very ability of the project to fund continued development of the project Amazon was free-riding on.

But why should Amazon be prevented from running said software? "Because I don't like it" isn't a good reason.

I agree. If it is free/permissive license then the point of such a license is that anybody can use it freely. Why does MongoDB not want Amazon to run it freely? Because MongoDB wants to make money.

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

#194

Post by holidaygoose »

mikedilger wrote: post #187
TeMPOraL wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It worries me that we're developing a culture where I as an individual must adhere to some moral framework when writing code, lest I violate some social open source norms. To me, this is deeply poisonous to the spirit of open source. Every culture or community has norms, and many of those norms generalize to universal moral principles, like: participate fairly in a community, not exploit it. "Spirit of Open Source"…

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 Russia…

No offense to you personally, but I find the opinions you expressed to be naive and self-centered. The open source software you're releasing (scratch-an-itch software) is much different from open source software that we all use, which requires people working together with the goal of building something impactful. Most open source requires effort from many people for development, testing, management, and maintenance, and requires sustained work on it over a long period of time. If everyone had your attitude, it's unlikely that open source would exist as it does today. No Linux, LibreOffice, VLC Player, or even matplotlib, D3.js, Firefox, Tor, or even wget.

People do often do open source to build a reputation, or to be able to push their vision, and both of those motivations should be encouraged. Furthermore, the attitude of "I built the technology and it's not my problem if people use it maliciously" is dangerous.

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

#195

Post by eitland »

karmakaze wrote: post #167
tango12 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is true. We had to change our license from AGPL to Apache to make sure enterprise adoption was frictionless because there’s often a blanket ban on AGPL. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20064281

Hmm, wonder if there's something we can take away from this. Let's say the latest major release is AGPL (or newer dominant copyleft) and the previous major release is more enterprise friendly licensed with those offering paid support handling the security and maintenance of them. This means that the community can continue to develop and use the latest and greatest. Not perfect but it might work in some cases.

As far as I can see this mught actually be a good idea if:

- you want to make your software as open as possible

- while still making money from it

It would require the manufacturer of the software to have some momentum but it sounds doable for some.

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

#196

Post by Drdrdrq »

tolmasky wrote: post #140
Drdrdrq wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I think we are in agreement. Except that MIT is not as well understood as most people think it is (Kyle Mitchell wrote about it, can't find the link right now), so you might want to lawyer up for opensource too. :) I just think a solution that better aligns incentives of users, businesses and developers is needed, because opensource doesn't do its job good enough. But time will tell which licenwe will get enough…

Sure, but the whole point is that the parties choosing to adopt "Source Available" licenses are doing so because they failed to predict how their users would use and profit from it, and in response, are wanting a new arrangement that better benefits them. So in some sense, we know ahead of time that this is a group which has been upset by unexpected use of their software. Now they've created a license that specifical…

Fair to the user - less than with FOSS, but more than with proprietary licenses. Fair to developer, yes.

But the problem for me is that if developers don't have incentives aligned with their users', then we get low quality software. I am a FOSS user and have been for many years, but while I appreciate the freedoms it grants me, the whole experience is... Let's say "inconsistent". I would prefer limiting some of the freedoms in exchange for better software, and especially in exchange for having it at all on mobile.

I think the somewhat extreme view FOSS movement holds about freedoms actually hurts opensource adoption, because it hurts its quality and availability.

Note that I don't mind Amazon (ab)using FOSS so much as I mind not having any freedom on mobile.

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

#197

Post by [deleted] »

tolmasky wrote: post #47

If you make your project open source, your goal should be maximizing people using it, not maximizing how much you profit from it. I know they may seem identical, but they aren't: Apple makes a lot of money by making software that has huge roadblocks to using it. And as many people are now realizing, open source has the ability to not make lots of money by making it incredibly easy for anyone to use. We all benefit gr…

[deleted]

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

#198

Post by blub »

tolmasky wrote: post #47

If you make your project open source, your goal should be maximizing people using it, not maximizing how much you profit from it. I know they may seem identical, but they aren't: Apple makes a lot of money by making software that has huge roadblocks to using it. And as many people are now realizing, open source has the ability to not make lots of money by making it incredibly easy for anyone to use. We all benefit gr…

And who do you think you are to dictate to others what something as deeply personal as their goals should be?

This must be one of the most arrogant things I've read on HN.

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

#199

Post by bartread »

karmakaze wrote: post #104

The problem isn't really here. The problem is that everyone wants a permissive abusable license when AGPL would be just fine. If everyone here complaining just used AGPL then we wouldn't have this Amazon situation. People want to have their cake and eat it too. They started with an MIT license because it gets more uptake then whine when the license terms are being followed. But then it wouldn't be widely used. The so…

Dual-licensing is an option too: you can either have AGPL or pay for some other license that allows commercial use without the need to open source everything else.

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

#200

Post by stevedonovan »

prepend wrote: post #87
fergie wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. I think it’s a bit rich of companies such as Elastic to extend existing open source projects, surf on the goodwill of open source, and then turn around and complain when other companies use elasticsearch as open source. The real issue with OS today is that it is too difficult to reward authors and contributors with actual cash money. Until this is fixed, “open source” is doomed to be a bunfight between well fu…

I think the corporate patronage is alive and well. If you look at Apache or Linux Foundation, lots of contributors are employees of large corporations. This works out ok in the sense that lots of great software is being created. I think the problem with Elastic is they have lots of VC investment pushing for a big payout, so it’s not a “pay the hackers” it’s a “make a big payout for founders and investors.” Which I’m…

I heard somewhere that Amazon did try to do a deal with Elastic and didn't like the price?
Post reply on HN