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

Bear is now source-available

herman.bearblog.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 509 posts

Re: Bear is now source-available

#211

Post by [deleted] »

zimpenfish wrote: post #181
swiftcoder wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd The original stance of the open source crowd was more along the lines of the GPL -> GPLv3 -> AGPL, which expressly prevents this kind of thing. The proliferation of "give everything away for free" MIT/BSD/Apache licenses seems to me to have been an intentional campaign by corporate interests to undermine free software ideals

> The original stance of the open source crowd was more along the lines of the GPL -> GPLv3 -> AGPL, which expressly prevents this kind of thing. Not wanting to further widen the schism but wasn't that the free software people rather than the open source people? cf [0], particularly the "not as strict" part. > In the late 1990's Eric Raymond and others developed the term "open source" as a more business friendly term…

[deleted]

Re: Bear is now source-available

#212

Post by jen20 »

swiftcoder wrote: post #144
cinericius wrote: post #3

As far as I understand it, the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd is that if Amazon can't make it one of their AWS offerings then it isn't true open source, and they'll get very upset at you if you claim it is. I'd like to see some recognition from this crowd of the "free-ride competition" problem as this author puts it. What Herman is doing is a service to us all, and we should find a term (better than 'source-availa…

> the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd The original stance of the open source crowd was more along the lines of the GPL -> GPLv3 -> AGPL, which expressly prevents this kind of thing. The proliferation of "give everything away for free" MIT/BSD/Apache licenses seems to me to have been an intentional campaign by corporate interests to undermine free software ideals

> The original stance of the open source crowd was more along the lines of the GPL -> GPLv3 -> AGPL, which expressly prevents this kind of thing.

s/open source/free software/

None of those licenses prevent Amazon-style freeloading though.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#213

Post by [deleted] »

rafram wrote: post #206
cxr wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS to me From the license at https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/998e87263248... >: " You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality " Given that the exclusive purpose of the Software in question is to implement a managed service for its users' hosting needs, I'm having trouble understan…

It’s saying that you can use Bear for your own blog, but you can’t launch a service that hosts other people’s blogs using it.

[deleted]

Re: Bear is now source-available

#214

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

_puk wrote: post #209
jakelazaroff wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people have no problem with non-open source software. The gnashing of teeth comes in when projects like Terraform become successful specifically because they're open source , and then the maintainer changes to a closed source license that would have prevented the project from being successful in the first place. Doubly so when they relicense outside contributors' work with a closed source license because those c…

Sounds like we need a "forever open source" license. A commitment that any significant derivative retain the original (or some later version) of the original license. "Free to do whatever as long as it retains this license. A commitment that this license will not change, even by the original author". No special cases, just a blanket license for all derivatives. If it exists, what are the barriers to adoption? Why don…

I'm really not a lawyer, but I'm skeptical that such a thing is even possible; is it legally possible to say that you as the copyright owner will never relicense something?

(What I'm given to understand does work is using a copyleft license and taking code from multiple parties without a CLA, because then relicensing requires all the copyright owners to agree, which for a large enough project is impractical.)

Re: Bear is now source-available

#215

Post by apgwoz »

anikom15 wrote: post #210
zimpenfish wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The original stance of the open source crowd was more along the lines of the GPL -> GPLv3 -> AGPL, which expressly prevents this kind of thing. Not wanting to further widen the schism but wasn't that the free software people rather than the open source people? cf [0], particularly the "not as strict" part. > In the late 1990's Eric Raymond and others developed the term "open source" as a more business friendly term…

No, open source was definitely more leaning toward the GPLv2 than the BSD-style licenses.

…until businesses decided that the GPLv2 was legally risky and businesses started to avoid it.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#216

Post by jen20 »

yencabulator wrote: post #142
delichon wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I spent a little time looking into it, and it turns out that Microsoft owns an outfit named GitHub, which apparently offers free hosting for open source projects and is used by a lot of open source software makers. And Microsoft has around 4k employees with contributions to OS projects on GitHub. So maybe "biggest" is a lie in light of their anti-OS efforts, but it is at least arguable. Can you propose a bigger one?

Microsoft is the biggest supporter of Microsoft gaining market share.

Red Hat is the biggest supported of Red Hat gaining market share. They are also a big supporter of open source...

I'm not claiming Microsoft is a good actor (and they certainly produce a whole lot of derpy trash along the way), but the argument itself is not particular sound.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#217

Post by JoshTriplett »

ezekg wrote: post #32
tptacek wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's one of four licenses linked on the front page of the FSF.

And it's the most abused license in the history of open source [0] [1]. [0]: https://keygen.sh/blog/weaponized-open-source/ [1]: https://keygen.sh/blog/whither-open-source/

Using a FOSS license and charging money for an alternative license is not abuse. And those blog posts appear to be FUD spread by a company whose own software is under proprietary licenses with source available.

People are welcome to use and host AGPLed software under its own FOSS terms. If people don't want to do that, and want to pay for alternative terms, that is also a sign that the license is effective. There's no point in restricting things people don't want to do. The GPL restricts something people want to do: make proprietary software. The AGPL restricts something people want to do: host software without distributing the source at all.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#218

Post by jen20 »

jraph wrote: post #84
gpm wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Presumably the license would, like practically all open source licenses, be irrevocable. You aren't guaranteed new versions will be issued under the same license (short of a contract saying otherwise, just like every other piece of open source software) but the existing license that did not list you as a jerk can't be revoked...

True, but that's still a risk that adds to the risk of the authors switching the license. BTW, if the jerk list is tied to the license, if the project had external contributors, they all need to agree to add or remove someone from the list, like any license change…

Untrue - all that needs to happen is that future work needs to be released with the new list attached.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#219

Post by _puk »

yjftsjthsd-h wrote: post #214
_puk wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like we need a "forever open source" license. A commitment that any significant derivative retain the original (or some later version) of the original license. "Free to do whatever as long as it retains this license. A commitment that this license will not change, even by the original author". No special cases, just a blanket license for all derivatives. If it exists, what are the barriers to adoption? Why don…

I'm really not a lawyer, but I'm skeptical that such a thing is even possible; is it legally possible to say that you as the copyright owner will never relicense something? (What I'm given to understand does work is using a copyleft license and taking code from multiple parties without a CLA, because then relicensing requires all the copyright owners to agree, which for a large enough project is impractical.)

How about a standard entity "OSI perhaps?!", that commits a file to an early stage of the repository (could this be automated), who then cannot / will not give approval for a relicense?

Re: Bear is now source-available

#220

Post by alberth »

>You may not provide the Software as a hosted or managed service that offers users access to substantial features or functionality.

IANAL, but does the above limitation prevent users from hosting bear for their own (or your company’s own) needs?

If so, doesn’t that defeat the whole reason why it’s MIT licensed.

https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/master/LICEN...

Post reply on HN