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

31–40 of 509 posts

Re: Bear is now source-available

#31

Post by happymellon »

ahartmetz wrote: post #19
omnicognate wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Isn't this what the AGPL is for? That's an OSI approved "open source" license that places restrictions on people making the software accessible as a network service.

I thought so, too, at first. But there's a crucial difference: With the AGPL, Bear's competition can offer the software as as service if they publish the source code they are deploying. With the Bear license, Bear's competition just cannot offer the software as a service. It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS to me, but Stallman would disagree. He has made it clear that there should be no restrictions on use.

> Bear's competition just cannot offer the software as a service. It feels mostly in the spirit of FOSS

I don't see how, there is nothing in the spirit of FOSS by doing that.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#32

Post by ezekg »

tptacek wrote: post #30
ezekg wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shame on the people who recommend the AGPL to effectively be an OSI-approved source-available license. This is a grievance against the spirit of open source.

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/

Re: Bear is now source-available

#33

Post by tptacek »

happymellon wrote: post #27
omnicognate wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Isn't this what the AGPL is for? That's an OSI approved "open source" license that places restrictions on people making the software accessible as a network service.

I think the problem that these folks have is that AGPL still allows other people to host the software. They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider. GPL would have been a better initial license, and AGPL would have been the next logical step to ensure that changes that hosted services make can come back to the original version. I'm not entirely sure what they were hoping to get by making an extr…

They care that other people can sell the software, not that other people can use the software, which is why the license they use makes that distinction.

Re: Bear is now source-available

#34

Post by tptacek »

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/

You might take that up with the FSF, which clearly disagrees with you about its "affront".

Re: Bear is now source-available

#35

Post by wahnfrieden »

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…

edit: I thought this HN thread was about the Bear app never mind

Re: Bear is now source-available

#36

Post by jakelazaroff »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #35
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…

edit: I thought this HN thread was about the Bear app never mind

Bear has no VC investors: https://herman.bearblog.dev/manifesto/

Re: Bear is now source-available

#37

Post by barnabee »

cinericius wrote: post #17
omnicognate wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Isn't this what the AGPL is for? That's an OSI approved "open source" license that places restrictions on people making the software accessible as a network service.

Not a lawyer, but my understanding is there is a strong feeling that AGPL can be roughly ignored if a service provider provides some level of indirection (e.g. a proxy) between the user and the software. Then, the software is somehow not being accessed over a network and thus they are not required to release the source.

I have a strong feeling that speaking to a lawyer might reveal that to be untrue

Re: Bear is now source-available

#38

Post by happymellon »

ezekg wrote: post #20
threemux wrote: post #4

I suppose this is the move if you're looking to foreclose all possible competing usages. Kudos for using correct terminology as it is no longer Open Source. However, I still believe AGPL is a better alternative in most cases and functionally prevents large enterprises from touching your code due to typical internal policies.

Shame on the people who recommend the AGPL to effectively be an OSI-approved source-available license. This is a grievance against the spirit of open source.

AGPL is exactly the spirit of open source. The license used by bear violates freedom 0. AGPL ensures that freedom 1, 2 and 3 are allowed even in hosted services scenarios.

Freedom 0 the freedom to use the work

Freedom 1 the freedom to study the work

Freedom 2 the freedom to copy and share the work with others

Freedom 3 the freedom to modify the work, and the freedom to distribute modified and therefore derivative works

Re: Bear is now source-available

#39

Post by mynameisvlad »

happymellon wrote: post #27
omnicognate wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Isn't this what the AGPL is for? That's an OSI approved "open source" license that places restrictions on people making the software accessible as a network service.

I think the problem that these folks have is that AGPL still allows other people to host the software. They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider. GPL would have been a better initial license, and AGPL would have been the next logical step to ensure that changes that hosted services make can come back to the original version. I'm not entirely sure what they were hoping to get by making an extr…

> They want to seem altruistic but want to also be the only provider.

This is an overly negative take. At the end of the day, they are still providing software and the source code free to use for practically every purpose except directly competing with them.

That's still altruistic while also being sensible in the real world rather than an ideal.

Post reply on HN