Post A3sGXfMtlckAL2JHUG by notclacke@pleroma.soykaf.com
(DIR) More posts by notclacke@pleroma.soykaf.com
(DIR) Post #A3s4279XjLOBnIFewC by rysiek@mastodon.social
2021-02-02T17:58:41Z
3 likes, 1 repeats
Huh, looks like some OpenSource folks are noticing that an open-source non-copyleft license does not protect from lock-in, and that lock-ins are bad:https://fosdem.org/2021/schedule/event/open_source_under_attack/> Open source was never designed or planned to be used as "Gateway Drug" to move people to a proprietary locked in software, but more and more this is happening.No, actually, it was designed specifically to allow just that, to be more "business-friendly": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#Origins
(DIR) Post #A3s8njUrO0cM8tBTjE by rysiek@mastodon.social
2021-02-02T18:41:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
So, the speaker works for #Percona, and Percona is on full-on offensive against MongoDB's #SSPL:https://www.percona.com/blog/2021/02/02/why-sspl-is-bad-for-you-part-2/Now, I do not have a strong opinion on SSPL, reading the text:https://www.mongodb.com/licensing/server-side-public-licenseIt seems to be GPL3 with the "Offering the Program as a Service" section added. After a cursory read I don't see why it would not be considered a Free/Libre Software license - just a strongly copyleft one.But Percona does not like it and does mental gymnastics to make it seem bad.
(DIR) Post #A3s8njzhXLHtgXc6ng by rysiek@mastodon.social
2021-02-02T18:49:06Z
2 likes, 1 repeats
The crazy thing here is that MongoDB switched from AGPL to SSPL apparently because AGPL was not easy enough to enforce and therefore did not protect MongoDB from being included in proprietary cloud solutions.In other words, MongoDB created a *stronger* copyleft license to combat cloud vendor lock-in, and now Percona complains about that and calling MongoDB the vendor that locked others out.What a roller-coaster. My head spins.
(DIR) Post #A3s8noYaZZZTpty1jc by rysiek@mastodon.social
2021-02-02T18:51:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
To make things even more crazy, both Debian and RedHad/Fedora dropped MongoDB from their repositories over SSPL:https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915537
(DIR) Post #A3s92HBYvf8MgF5nsW by lnxw37a2@pleroma.soykaf.com
2021-02-02T18:55:13.998151Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek My memory of all this is fuzzy, but my impression is that AGPL wasn't getting enough commercial MongoDB users to buy a license ... and that SSPL was meant to force them to pay up.
(DIR) Post #A3s9LMFiJYN9th8K5g by rysiek@mastodon.social
2021-02-02T18:58:04Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@lnxw37a2 yeah, that's what I'm getting from it too.It's just... I cannot fully process the way this whole thing is upside-down, OpenSource people complaining about vendors "locking" them in/out, AGPL not being copyleft enough for some projects, cats and dogs sleeping together.
(DIR) Post #A3sGXfMtlckAL2JHUG by notclacke@pleroma.soykaf.com
2021-02-02T20:17:45.757101Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek @lnxw37a2 I see more and more often people talking about "the true spirit of open source" and the like, and then they go on to describe the differences between free software and open source without realizing it, because they believe open source has "lost its way", as if it had one.So when they say "true open source" they mean free software and when they say open source that has been corrupted they mean open source. :-D
(DIR) Post #A3sIFqnmiakmUkWCqO by notclacke@pleroma.soykaf.com
2021-02-02T20:37:03.963418Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek @lnxw37a2 To allow myself some hyperbole, a lot of people who came to open source in the last decade think that you can't do free software without applying strong copyleft to all the things, have a long beard and be mean to people who don't have long beards, so they distance themselves from free software even though they want the ideology.
(DIR) Post #A3sJNIlXFRVJCiaDA0 by rysiek@mastodon.social
2021-02-02T20:43:04Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@notclacke @lnxw37a2 yeah, that's a serious problem, I see it too.Plus there's a lot of "you are not allowed make money on free software" bullcrap.
(DIR) Post #A3sNpPJQttppQw5zZQ by devurandom@cybre.space
2021-02-02T18:50:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek i think the issue is that the > “Service Source Code” means the Corresponding Source for the Program or the modified version, and the Corresponding Source for all programs that you use to make the Program or modified version available as a service, ..., all such that a user could run an instance of the service using the Service Source Code you make available.part could be interpreted to mean that _all_ lower-level software, from the web server all the way to the operating system, has to be available under the SSPL license in order for its usage to be acceptable.which imo is just absurd.
(DIR) Post #A3sNpPm9B8nsrzWvKK by notclacke@pleroma.soykaf.com
2021-02-02T20:28:08.292324Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@devurandom @rysiek The AGPL is already pushing it and almost didn't make it into Debian as an approved license, as it puts conditions on freedom 0, you can only run the software if you provide remote users with source.The SSPL crosses another line and puts conditions on software that is not even a derivative of the licensed software. You can't run it without applying extra conditions to this other software you're also running.
(DIR) Post #A3sNpQ8Tq6fTzFyl8a by SuperDicq@cdrom.tokyo
2021-02-02T21:40:57.840981Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@notclacke @devurandom @rysiek Yes exactly. The SSPL is considered a nonfree license by both the OSI and FSF.The way the SSPL enforces "copyleft" is that you have to make all the code that interfaces with MongoDB free software.That means that using MongoDB means you'll have to make everything you do free software, even the code that is not derived from MongoDB. This is not copyleft. In this case you're only allowed to run MongoDB if you meet certain criteria, this is a restriction and thus not free.
(DIR) Post #A3sNpQrr7OxqFzCzrc by devurandom@cybre.space
2021-02-02T18:52:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek if they said, for example, that the program should be available under this license and all the other programs required are allowed to be any FOSS license in general (whether defined via the OSI list or a set of criteria), that'd be more acceptable imo.
(DIR) Post #A3sO8LII46UWTMaemW by SuperDicq@cdrom.tokyo
2021-02-02T21:44:24.930613Z
0 likes, 1 repeats
@notclacke @devurandom @rysiek The reason why they do this is even worse. "Oh you don't want your entire codebase to be free software? Better buy our enterprise license then"
(DIR) Post #A3sOJODLY2YGiOXsg4 by SuperDicq@cdrom.tokyo
2021-02-02T21:46:24.844761Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@devurandom @notclacke @rysiek So in my opinion MongoDB deserves all the shit they get for this move. The AGPL is a much better license.
(DIR) Post #A3saDFf5dFoJu0MUhE by cadadr@mastodon.sdf.org
2021-02-02T22:43:41Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@SuperDicq @devurandom @rysiek @notclacke That's pretty much evident from Elliot's and his lawyers behaviour on the list as it's fairly obvious their mission is to scare some people. They don't answer questions about how users are affected and those about some economical discriminations SSPL may cause, and the lawyer is bold enough to use "should" language with OSI when they popped out of nowhere and threw this hot potato on OSI's hands w/o notice.They've since retracted SSPL.
(DIR) Post #A3saDG6Nzle3Gf8IF6 by SuperDicq@cdrom.tokyo
2021-02-02T23:59:45.035153Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cadadr @devurandom @rysiek @notclacke I personally don't care about what the OSI has to say. They are a ripoff organization. I only listen to the FSF.
(DIR) Post #A3saOohLhwe9kdvvGK by SuperDicq@cdrom.tokyo
2021-02-03T00:01:50.650184Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cadadr @devurandom @notclacke @rysiek But yeah I still think it is harmful how corporations are weaponizing unreasonable copyleft using dual licensing business models. I'm glad the FSF and OSI do not approve the SSPL.
(DIR) Post #A3sewHMqXKKE2ZYSbw by notclacke@pleroma.soykaf.com
2021-02-03T00:18:19.861935Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@cadadr @SuperDicq @devurandom @rysiek Just so that nobody else misunderstands and thinks you mean they retired the license entirely: They are using SSPL for the current version of Mongo and have every intention to keep doing that.They retracted their request for OSI certification as an Open Source license because that clearly wasn't happening.Just to clarify.
(DIR) Post #A3spBHA0aV1NHeL7Wi by rysiek@mastodon.social
2021-02-02T18:55:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@devurandom yup, that's the gist of Debian's analysis of SSPL and why they decided to drop MongoDB.It's a hot mess.But I find it amusing to see Percona employee complaining that MongoDB doesn't let them vendor-lock MongoDB users on a cloud, and uses a phrase like "classic open source model and values" in a piece of text that reads more like rms complaining about, well, OpenSource.
(DIR) Post #A3spBHfufsXesbGbFw by devurandom@cybre.space
2021-02-02T19:02:14Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek i also think that overly-harsh foss licenses could be used for an opposite scummy move. i can imagine a company adopting something like the sspl as a way to pretend to be an "open-source company" while making software that can only be practically legally used if you buy a proprietary-licensed copy.
(DIR) Post #A3spobQHBcePQ6hXMW by cjd@mastodon.social
2021-02-02T19:04:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek @devurandom Percona doesn't do proprietary cloud, they do support. They're probably mad because all of their customers are now buying a proprietary license from whatever company makes mongo and the license comes with support included so they're out of a job.
(DIR) Post #A3spobv7KxJwxl8AQy by notclacke@pleroma.soykaf.com
2021-02-02T21:28:57.953823Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cjd @rysiek @devurandom I thought Percona sold a proprietary Postgres derivative. I guess I never read to the bottom of the page:> Always Open Source> Percona is committed to being open source and preventing vendor lock-in.> Percona contributes all changes to the upstream community for possible inclusion in future product releases.https://www.percona.com/software/postgresql-distributionThey don't say the distro is open source though, only everything in it, or even just that everything in it will be when merged upstream. It's a bit like RHEL, I guess. Is there a "CentOS" to Percona's Postgres packaging?
(DIR) Post #A3spqlGJZiIqW14TRI by dredmorbius@toot.cat
2021-02-02T21:30:28Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@rysiek That's the standing gripe by many against BSD/MIT style licences.(Of course, for many BSD/MIT folk, this is a feature. At least until development of their own preferred, or created, codebase becomes coopted by some proprietary organisation.)
(DIR) Post #A3tP4fxZaAP8WKfvNI by notclacke@pleroma.soykaf.com
2021-02-02T21:54:40.770762Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dredmorbius @rysiek (or by someone who applies a copyleft license to it)
(DIR) Post #A3tP4gQdq5elyUH8gS by dredmorbius@toot.cat
2021-02-02T22:03:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@notclacke OpenBSD's Theo de Raat is at least consistently principled in that regard.They've worked to limit GPLed software in the base install ... but, when pf threw a gratuitous anti-GPL clause into the work, OpenBSD did a rewrite of (and improved on) the firewall code.@rysiek
(DIR) Post #A3tP4gpSLpVRDRsxMW by cadadr@mastodon.sdf.org
2021-02-03T00:19:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@dredmorbius @notclacke @rysiek There's a lot of "leopards ate my face" in this whole story.Many projects used licences that appeal to the corporate. Projects began to appeal to the corporate. But not exactly how projects expected. Now projects mad, because corporations are not nice to them.
(DIR) Post #A3tP4hIsaR2egheSDw by ashwinvis@mastodon.acc.sunet.se
2021-02-03T09:29:38Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@cadadr @dredmorbius @notclacke @rysiek Even non-corporate projects which favour BSD style licenses do so while telling themselves it is a way to achieve "adoption". Here's John Hunter's pitch on why he did so for matplotlib:http://nipy.sourceforge.net/software/license/johns_bsd_pitch.htmlBut what he and others miss is there is no end game. Normal users would not care whether it is GPL or BSD as long as it is free. You may be famous, but will be no richer than a developer who went for GPL.