Post 2798921 by espectalll@mstdn.io
(DIR) More posts by espectalll@mstdn.io
(DIR) Post #2780304 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:07:06Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
????????? https://twitter.com/mjasay/status/1082428001558482944
(DIR) Post #2780352 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:09:07Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
:thinking_happy: (last pic is from http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-November/003836.html)
(DIR) Post #2780375 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:10:16Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
this looks fun to read
(DIR) Post #2780591 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:17:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
like wow
(DIR) Post #2780646 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:20:12Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
Are VC companies on drugs or something https://techcrunch.com/2018/11/29/the-crusade-against-open-source-abuse/
(DIR) Post #2780654 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:20:41Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
"yes, we love open source, but we don't know how to make money out of Amazon so we want it not to be open source but pretend it is"
(DIR) Post #2780684 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:22:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
how did I not know this is going on????
(DIR) Post #2780970 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:33:44Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
basically, MongoDB is trying to create a new definition of copyleft, so they can apply it only for #services. Gotta love those ambiguous terms, "service" and "value"http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-December/003863.htmlhttp://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-December/003889.html
(DIR) Post #2781020 by uranther@cybre.space
2019-01-08T21:36:47Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@espectalll Are they trying to get around the Free Software aspects of AGPLv3? Not sure I understand what's going on here.
(DIR) Post #2781151 by Skoll3@pleroma.site
2019-01-08T21:42:04.839422Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@espectalll commons clause is not open source, obviouslyBut what is wrong with SSPL?
(DIR) Post #2781152 by bob@soc.freedombone.net
2019-01-08T21:41:19.914711Z
0 likes, 2 repeats
@espectalll It was one of the big stories of last year, but Commons Clause is not really an open source license. I think they submitted it to OSI and it was rejected.Also I'm not a copyright lawyer but my interpretation is that with copyleft licenses you can grant extra permissions as an addition to the license but I don't think you can add restrictions which conflict with the four freedoms. Commons clause tries to do that.
(DIR) Post #2781153 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:42:15Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bob I know perfectly well about Commons, it's SSPL the one I didn't know anything about
(DIR) Post #2781179 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:44:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Skoll3 keep in mind that article isn't from the people doing SSPLSSPLv1 isn't considered open source and v2 is still having a hard time being accepted by the OSI due to the weird way they're trying to do copyleft
(DIR) Post #2781253 by feld@bikeshed.party
2019-01-08T21:47:37.456942Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@espectalll if you use permissive licenses you don't have to worry about abuse
(DIR) Post #2781262 by roka@pl.smuglo.li
2019-01-08T21:48:09.883588Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld @espectalll come home, free man :ignutius:
(DIR) Post #2781264 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:48:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld actually that's exactly the issue they claim to have, that they're not getting contributions back because of loopholes on AGPL making it too permissive
(DIR) Post #2781265 by Vamp898@social.tchncs.de
2019-01-08T21:48:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@espectalllIt's always GPL for meKiss and greets go to rms
(DIR) Post #2781284 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:49:13Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@uranther they feel the AGPL is insufficient and has loopholes companies like Amazon are taking advantage of, and want a license which makes sure under which conditions the software can be used for #services https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-license/faq
(DIR) Post #2781354 by feld@bikeshed.party
2019-01-08T21:53:15.318401Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@espectalll If your software is not trivial and if your software is being actively developed people don't successfully fork it. It's much easier to submit your changes upstream than to pay a team to constantly try to rebase their fork. This has been proven time and time again in the BSD ecosystem. Those who fork regret it and suffer the consequences of millions of dollars of technical debt.
(DIR) Post #2781374 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:54:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld ...yeah, sure, but here they're claiming they're just not profiting in any way from what companies like Amazon or Microsoft do. They make their own modifications and don't even share them or have to pay a penny, they claim.
(DIR) Post #2781419 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T21:57:12Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
:thinking_happy: http://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-December/003871.html
(DIR) Post #2781527 by uranther@cybre.space
2019-01-08T22:01:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@espectalll Hmm, yes.. They really know how to couch it.Seems like they are just butthurt for not knowing how to do business with the big dogs. They are a for-profit publicly-traded business, after all, but they are behaving like they don't get paid for their development of the software.The quote you posted just now spelled it out plainly.
(DIR) Post #2781575 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T22:04:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@uranther yes, that's exactly the conclusion I'm getting from reading these threads and their explanations tbh
(DIR) Post #2781613 by szbalint@x0r.be
2019-01-08T22:05:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@espectalll nothing of value was lost with that though, mongo is one of the worst pieces of storage software I’ve ever seen
(DIR) Post #2781705 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-08T22:10:48Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
The end of the story seems to be that it's just not possible to make an open source license significantly better than the AGPL for now because there's always potential loopholes when trying to define online stuff. Either you adapt your business model to open source, or do what MongoDB is trying to do and adapt the idea of open source to your business model - which the OSI finds unacceptablehttp://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-December/003879.htmlhttp://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists.opensource.org/2018-December/003881.html
(DIR) Post #2783953 by maiyannah@community.highlandarrow.com
2019-01-08T23:17:21+00:00
0 likes, 0 repeats
@bob@soc.freedombone.net @espectalll Commons Clause is essentially trying to create a backdoor for corporate interests to exfiltrate projects from FOSS and make them proprietary.
(DIR) Post #2787416 by Tlacaelel@hispagatos.space
2019-01-09T02:06:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@espectalllLots of drugs. The worst kind.
(DIR) Post #2787479 by Tlacaelel@hispagatos.space
2019-01-09T02:10:54Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@espectalllTo be honest I highly doubt that the managing director of Bain Capital shares Rms Stallman's passion for libre software aka "open source". "Free "as in free beer, not something vulture :acab: capitalist like ;) same with "freedom to innovate". These corporation aholics smash intention of good in science and engineering
(DIR) Post #2791977 by rick_777@cybre.space
2019-01-09T05:51:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@espectalllSo it's a crappy license then?@uranther
(DIR) Post #2797820 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-09T10:46:05Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rick_777 @uranther basically, it's the GPL [gone wrong] [gone silicon valley]
(DIR) Post #2798406 by anjum@mstdn.io
2019-01-09T11:05:26Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@espectalll At first few glances, this doesn't seem like a bad thing? Just asserting copyleft harder.
(DIR) Post #2798921 by espectalll@mstdn.io
2019-01-09T11:28:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@anjum The problem is how you actually make that copyleft. You can't just set specific terms by purpose, trying to keep it all copyleft seems to always leave loopholes (you can always run code in more convoluted ways that get out of a definition), and to get out of that issue you would have to include software that's not directly related to get copylefted
(DIR) Post #2804016 by telent@mastodon.social
2019-01-09T10:10:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld @espectalll I hear what you're saying here, but isn't Amazon Linux (RHEL fork, approximately) basically a counter example?
(DIR) Post #2804017 by feld@bikeshed.party
2019-01-09T15:34:14.055734Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@telent @espectalll is Amazon Linux beating RHEL at their own game? Is it more than just a rebranding or slimmed down image for their infrastructure?I've never even heard of "Amazon Linux", by the way...
(DIR) Post #2806105 by telent@mastodon.social
2019-01-09T17:08:27Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld @espectalll amazon linux is the path of least resistance if you want a rpm-based distribution running on your aws cloud instances: it has preinstalled all the aws bits you need for easily managing those boxes at scale. By making it easier to choose that over installing and paying for rhel - they aren't beating redhat at redhat's game, they're making their own rules up for a completely different game.
(DIR) Post #2806106 by feld@bikeshed.party
2019-01-09T17:29:09.216774Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@telent @espectalll I don't understand -- are you saying that a distro re-spin/customization is somehow an evil fork? Because that's not even a fork, IMO. Not in the slightest. They're just optimizing the OS for their specific platform. I'm sure they stripped out all RedHat trademarks because it's not an officially supported OS and they're serving packages from their own internal mirrors which are just alternative builds of the SRPMs.Call me when they've actually forked *code*. Like massive changes to RPM/yum/dnf, for example.If anything we should be mad at RedHat for forking the Linux kernel and having patches/changes that are not upstream in vanilla.The FreeBSD AMI images are also different from the FreeBSD installation media, too. It's not a fork.
(DIR) Post #2808445 by telent@mastodon.social
2019-01-09T19:12:23Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@feld @espectalll whether they've forked the code or not is largely immaterial, I think. What matters is if they've established themselves as supplier of software (as a service) to people who would otherwise have spent money with "upstream" and thereby supported upstream development.
(DIR) Post #2808446 by feld@bikeshed.party
2019-01-09T19:15:16.220483Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@telent @espectalll Is it a fork or is it the inclusion of some additional software and kernel modules enabled by default to support the platform?Sounds to me like RedHat should include the support in an image and ship it. It doesn't seem complicated at all.