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

Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

jeffgeerling.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 164 posts

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#81

Post by jabl »

cogman10 wrote: post #65
buildfocus wrote: post #47

There are uses for CLAs besides rug pulls. For example, if you want to offer software as AGPL, accept community contributions, but be able to _also_ offer a non-AGPL option to paying customers (who effectively pay to be allowed to integrate the license without themselves being subject to licensing risk). Quite a few big orgs have a full ban on internal use of AGPL software so this can be very valuable. That requires…

Funnily, one of the best places for this in practice (IMO) is microsoft. Who is now, again funnily enough, GPLing a lot of their software but have CLAs so they can do long term support for people that want to pay for it. Latest versions stay fully open source while back ported fixes are a paid feature if you don't keep your software up to date. That, to me, is a win win. Oracle is doing the same with the JDK.

> Funnily, one of the best places for this in practice (IMO) is microsoft. Who is now, again funnily enough, GPLing a lot of their software but have CLAs so they can do long term support for people that want to pay for it.

Huh, what software is MS releasing under the GPL now?

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#82

Post by chefandy »

Decabytes wrote: post #62

I'm glad Jeff pointed out the RMS article on Free software > For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software. > “Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give yo…

I think the FSF's take is philosophically solid, and I've gotten a ton of of their software and advocacy over the years, as most software developers surely have. However, developers and other technical people are nearly the only people for whom that's true.

So much of the FOSS world blames marketing for the lack of non-technical users, routinely ignore, or even deride the prospect of prioritizing the most important factor non-technical users choosing software: usability. The people who do so dismiss interface and experience design as superfluous aesthetics. It might be true for people with a working mental model of software architecture in their back pocket, but to others, those little 'trivial' bits of prerequisite knowledge aggregate into a giant frustrating roadblock.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#83

Post by cogman10 »

jabl wrote: post #81
cogman10 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Funnily, one of the best places for this in practice (IMO) is microsoft. Who is now, again funnily enough, GPLing a lot of their software but have CLAs so they can do long term support for people that want to pay for it. Latest versions stay fully open source while back ported fixes are a paid feature if you don't keep your software up to date. That, to me, is a win win. Oracle is doing the same with the JDK.

> Funnily, one of the best places for this in practice (IMO) is microsoft. Who is now, again funnily enough, GPLing a lot of their software but have CLAs so they can do long term support for people that want to pay for it. Huh, what software is MS releasing under the GPL now?

Not as much as I thought. MIT is more common it looks like.

https://github.com/orgs/microsoft/repositories?q=license%3Ag...

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#84

Post by bigstrat2003 »

kube-system wrote: post #13
kevingadd wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you do actual open source and your product is any good, somebody else is just going to repackage it and sell it, either as SAAS/IAAS or as a boxed product. So why not get there first? It's depressing. That's been my experience every time I gave code away, at least. Somebody else made money off it.

Why is it depressing? It was your choice to share it.

Exactly. If I put something out in the world for the benefit of others, and someone packages it up for profit, I'm still achieving my goal. In fact, that helps my goal to advance even further! That's not depressing to me, that's exciting.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#85

Post by crandycodes »

downrightmike wrote: post #72
Decabytes wrote: post #62

I'm glad Jeff pointed out the RMS article on Free software > For the free software movement, however, nonfree software is a social problem, and the solution is to stop using it and move to free software. > “Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give yo…

"What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source.” I have zero idea what this means and I've been on Debian since Woody

It's possible that "Open Source" here is the OSI definition, which FSF has some objections to. If "Closed Source" just means "not Open Source as OSI defines it", then it is true that some non-OSI software is "free" software. Free software still requires source to be available and that you're allowed to modify and distribute it.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#86

Post by nemothekid »

geerlingguy wrote: post #41
nrawe wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep. The author complains that there used to be plucky startups with Open Core business models who've now gone "extinct", while simultaneously sharpening their pitchforks because those same companies got successful and _slightly_ amended their licenses to prevent loosing revenue against IaaS giants so that they can, in turn, continue innovating. I guess money grows on trees where they live.

The projects I think of most are redis and ansible—both of which I've used extensively, and quickly went from 'neat thing I spotted on Hacker News' to 'now it's a startup', then a few years later 'it's just another corporation, the open source project is buried somewhere deep inside'. The projects weren't as much open core as they were literal open source projects made to solve some problem the author had with other…

I'm not sure what the alternative is or what you are advocating. Antirez stopped working on Redis 4 years ago. We were lucky someone created Redis "for the love of the game". Now before you there are a couple options

1. Antirez2 pops up and works on Redis because they love working on Redis

2. Someone is incentivized, with money, to work on Redis.

(1) didn't happen, so we must go with (2), and with (2) comes the problem of the actual business model that will be used to sustain (2).

A. Donations/Support contracts

B. Open "Core" aka I'm the only one allowed to sell this as SaaS.

Method (A) has shown to be an abject failure while AWS takes your revenue. Companies have successfully chosen method (B). Either you have a method (C) in mind, or you just aren't being reasonable in asking people to work on OSS for free. You can be mad about the "rugpull", but between the choice of "rugpull" and abandon the project, I don't see how "rugpull" is the worse option

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#87

Post by bsnnkv »

I recently re-licensed a large open source project from MIT to a source-available license which restricts redistribution after someone decided to fork it, completely rearrange the code and introduce subtle breaking interface changes, and then package it up with basic Electron UI for sale on a platform digital store.

I don't know what the answer is, but the OSI definition is clearly not built to withstand this era of late stage capitalism and the "hustle culture" that permeates through it.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#88

Post by jcheng »

davisr wrote: post #61
radlad wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've piqued my interest. Can you share more? Do you have a blog post about your product and how you sell it?

I don't have a post about it, but the equation is pretty simple: good cross-platform software + good documentation + responsive development = good product. The trick is to write good software -- the license doesn't matter so much. But, making it free/libre is competitively advantageous, all else considered. Some customers have told me they would not have considered paying for a proprietary option. My project is calle…

There's nothing to stop any of your paying customers from setting up their own site and giving away (or selling for cheaper) copies of RCU, right? I'm guessing you understand that and figure the downside risk is low--small numbers, low stakes, consumer focused, good vibes?

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#89

Post by trueismywork »

buildfocus wrote: post #47

There are uses for CLAs besides rug pulls. For example, if you want to offer software as AGPL, accept community contributions, but be able to _also_ offer a non-AGPL option to paying customers (who effectively pay to be allowed to integrate the license without themselves being subject to licensing risk). Quite a few big orgs have a full ban on internal use of AGPL software so this can be very valuable. That requires…

That's a rug pull for a price. I don't think it's a problem because the software is still there. But it's a rug pull.

Re: Jeff Geerling: Corporate Open Source Is Dead

#90

Post by matheusmoreira »

busterarm wrote: post #24
matheusmoreira wrote: post #19

Always remember: It's either AGPLv3 or proprietary all rights reserved. Anything else means you're giving your labor away for free to the beggar barons. Biggest wealth transfer in history, from developers and straight into the pockets of billionaires. It's just irrational. Also remember: Whoever owns the copyright gets to do whatever they want. The licensing security of free software, defined here as the likelihood o…

Maybe I like writing software that I don't bother to monetize but allows anyone who wants to come along and use it to eat to do so. Don't give things away if you care about what happens to them afterwards. So many people completely misunderstand what open source is about.

> Don't give things away

That's exactly the point I was making. My whole point was: DO NOT just give things away. That's just irrational. It brings you no profit and doesn't actually create long lasting wealth and freedom in the form of copyleft software. All it does is enable your exploitation. All it does is enrich billionaire corporations who are free to take the work of others, use it to make a killing and then laugh all the way to the bank at the suckers who made it all possible for free.

Don't just give your code away for free. Either make it proprietary all rights reserved, or make it AGPLv3. Those are the two choices. Maximum profit or maximum freedom. Either they pay you lots of money, or they adhere to the full set of conditions spelled out by the AGPLv3.

Don't just give your stuff away. Attach lots of strings to it. Strings that force others to benefit you in return for your generosity. Either by paying you lots of money or by being equally generous to you in return.

Don't just give software away. That was the point.

There is exactly one scenario where "permissive" licensing makes sense: a world without copyright. In other words, a world without licensing at all. They can copy your software and you can copy theirs. Until such a day comes that copyright is abolished though, "permissive" licensing is just nonsense, it just gives away all your leverage.

Post reply on HN