331–340 of 473 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately many companies charge extra for security where security should be the default. Truth to be told there some some situations where extra security costs could be justified but there are not many if charge is necessary it should be considered as a temporary measure. My $0.02.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unfortunately many companies charge extra for security where security should be the default. Truth to be told there some some situations where extra security costs could be justified but there are not many if charge is necessary it should be considered as a temporary measure. My $0.02.
Including the recent trend of access to SOC2 reports requiring an "Enterprise" tier subscription.
We did not get certified because we wanted it, we did because the enterprise scale customers forced us to. Due to their internal bureaucracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For the most part I don't think people are against shared source or closed software existing, being sold, being marketed, etc. There's really only two things people viscerally don't like: - Marketing a project that isn't open source as open source. Debate about what the "definition" is or why it matters all you want; taking a term and using it in a way that contradicts the vast majority of domain experts is bullshit.…
I would rather a software product be eventually open source than use a never open source license, but I still try not to use it if I can choose open source. And I refuse to sign CLA's that require giving more eights than the license grants to me, and won't sponsor projects that require them. (with some limited, carefully considered exceptions for well established open source foundations that require CLAs, but that ha…
> Smolblog shall be entitled to make Your Contributions available under a proprietary license provided Smolblog also makes Your Contributions available to the public under the terms of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 or later.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Elastic license doesn’t use the term “competitor”. To me, the definition of the limitation is actually pretty clear: > You may not provide the software to third parties as a hosted or managed service, where the service provides users with access to any substantial set of the features or functionality of the software. https://www.elastic.co/licensing/elastic-license
It doesn't use the word, but "access to any substantial set of the features or functionality of the software as a hosted or managed service" is a specific kind of competition, and who is a competitor can change at any time depending on what functionality Elastic adds, even if you had reimplemented some of the enterprise functionality in a private fork.
It seems risky to use in anything exposed as a customer facing feature
Search may be 10% of your software but what if your software is a managed email provider (or really anything) and you're pretty much exposing Elasticsearch directly through a minimal interface?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right, but they aren't naming their business "Bob's $BRAND" which is kinda the point.
How can that be the point? That would be parallel to Amazon calling itself Elasticsearch, which never happened or was even a remote possibility.
Open source communities are essentially anarchist syndicates, collectively working towards common good. Groups like Amazon coming in and taking their work and selling it, profiting to the tune of millions, and contributing nothing back will fundamentally alter the dynamics of the system.
IMO, we need a definition of open source that permits me to limit users to those who aren't actively exploiting me. GPL flavors get close, but not sufficient.
I believe, genuinely, in wellbeing for all, and that we should be working towards the common good of all. Open source is one such effort, but I'm tired of seeing people say, "it's only open source if the code is also permitted to be used against the common good and for the enrichment of a very select few already wealthy people."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Security is a basic non functional requirement for all software.
Side note: Security in these discussions is often something more like "It works with my single sign on system" or "It lets me check this box on my audit form". Security doesn't only have to happen at the app layer and it's completely doable to isolate any software in a way that is is secure despite itself. So it's less security and more convenient security that is being demanded for free most often by people who offer nothing for free themselves. The entitlement is really extreme.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Whatever you think of those companies in a wider sense, it's totally inaccurate to suggest that Microsoft, Google or Amazon haven't given anything back to open source.
Hyperbole aside, they certainly haven't given as much as they've gotten, though. E.g., remember when Heartbleed hit, and the world learned that OpenSSL was maintained by one person getting only $2000/year for it? Fixing Heartbleed was estimated to cost half a billion dollars world-wide.
Reference: most software in the Apache Foundation and huge portion of the container ecosystem.
I'm increasingly of the opinion that the definition of "open source" that narrowly defines open source is going to be the thing that contributes to the reduction of open source software. Open source communities are essentially anarchist syndicates, collectively working towards common good. Groups like Amazon coming in and taking their work and selling it, profiting to the tune of millions, and contributing nothing ba…
What do you think makes it insufficient?