Post AYf5CMPvxes0p6zjwe by msw@mstdn.social
(DIR) More posts by msw@mstdn.social
(DIR) Post #AYf2snlSNMGfwHbkDw by TheSteve0@data-folks.masto.host
2023-08-12T15:22:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
My controversial hot take:People so wrapped up in "no restrictions on field of use" for Open Source are stuck in the same logic as people who say Free speech means you can say whatever you want in public. Popper's Tolerance Paradox or whatever you want to call it. Hyperscalers parasitizing and monopolizing revenue of FOSS projects is NOT OK. Sure sure, I know, FOSS is not a business model. Keep ignoring the problem and we will end up with much less #FOSS[Updated to focus the argument]
(DIR) Post #AYf2soYjQ9gQP6f61o by TheSteve0@data-folks.masto.host
2023-08-12T15:40:14Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
My controversial request:#OSI helps craft a license that is tightly worded on preventing hyperscalers from monopolizing revenues in a FOSS ecosystem. Make a good, tight definition so there is clarity and consensus on what the license means and restricts. But more debate about what is and is not open source is actually hurting a lot of people who create and use Open Source. Maybe it is not #OSI, but some respected entity should step in here.
(DIR) Post #AYf2spOqIPMp0j2iFk by msw@mstdn.social
2023-08-12T16:27:09Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 your idea has now entered the marketplace, in which it will compete with others. If there is utility in it, perhaps it will gather resources to bring it into being.Personally, I think it won't. Because the Open Source Definition delivers much more utility than open(ish) for the benefit of a single for-profit vendor.That's just good 'ole Proprietary Software.
(DIR) Post #AYf5CIBxffJhicQWbw by msw@mstdn.social
2023-08-12T15:39:03Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 "if we had not welcomed everybody with open arms and made clear that the commercial exploitation of the software was our hope not our fear, we would have achieved absolutely nothing that really mattered to use about freedom"Now, we do *not* welcome Nazis with open arms. Or companies that implement DRM systems that make it impossible to own art and literature (only rent it). Or make consumer devices that are unrepairable.https://softwarefreedom.org/resources/2016/whither-copyleft.html
(DIR) Post #AYf5CJ3qRKQ0PjdYbA by TheSteve0@data-folks.masto.host
2023-08-12T15:43:49Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@msw Nope nope nope. That is fine in the ivory tower world." And that is fine for what Freedom meant to THOSE people. But for many of us non-hyperscaler users OR people who want to release open-source and make it their living - that is not the freedom they care about.Again, keep mischaracterizing the problem and you keep making yourself irrelevant. OR be fine that FOSS will decline and BSL will be the rising license for many new project. Solve the problem, don't nitpick freedom
(DIR) Post #AYf5CKAcJdQhr1oTnE by msw@mstdn.social
2023-08-12T15:45:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 in the end, markets will ultimately decide. š¤·āāļø
(DIR) Post #AYf5CLCmT4kr41pinw by TheSteve0@data-folks.masto.host
2023-08-12T15:47:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@msw Which they seem to be doing right now. The lack of some respected entity coming in and tightly defining a license that prevents hyperscaler monopolization is really causing a lot of pain and confusion in the community. I guess BSL licenses will now start to go through the Cambrian Explosion of licenses in the late 90s - early 00s
(DIR) Post #AYf5CMPvxes0p6zjwe by msw@mstdn.social
2023-08-12T15:52:31Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 I genuinely do not know what you could mean by your "hyperscaler monopolization" term. No cloud provider has anything close to a monopoly in the highly competitive growing cloud infrastructure segments. And most software runs *outside* of the cloud, not via cloud provider managed services.
(DIR) Post #AYf5COOEcwhQwQDPZg by TheSteve0@data-folks.masto.host
2023-08-12T15:59:17Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@msw If you put hyperscalers on one side and new or smaller FOSS projects on the other side. Once hyperscalers start monetizing that FOSS project the majority of the revenue in that ecosystem will flow to the hyperscalers. In this new hosted software market - this cripples the inventors from turning their idea into a viable business. Are you being obtuse about the problems MongoDB, HashiCorp, ElasticSearch... have clearly and fairly pointed out?
(DIR) Post #AYf5CPmjRLtBGggUOe by msw@mstdn.social
2023-08-12T16:06:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 HashiCorp has no quarrel with CSPs, with whom they partner closely. They have made that clear in blog posts and interviews.MongoDB's quarrel was with cloud providers in China. Indeed they wanted to force them to partner like AWS did to help them build Atlas from the beginning. And it worked.Elastic... Oh, Elastic... https://twitter.com/elchefe/status/1690104898254217216
(DIR) Post #AYf5CQn7hNnQOBsJe4 by TheSteve0@data-folks.masto.host
2023-08-12T16:10:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@msw Not fixing this problem will lead to a rise of BSL, or even worse, a rise in proprietary software. Hyperscaler hosted software is "something you must buy" that the user "can't understand, can't fix," and can't use (because it is controlled by the hyperscaler hosting it) - Eblen's ideas modified for our new cloud world. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eben_Moglen#Statements_and_perspectivesHyperscaler selling hosted FOSS prevents the founders from growing a business will just hurt FOSS and, by extension, users.
(DIR) Post #AYf5CSqk2tsYlzaEYy by msw@mstdn.social
2023-08-12T16:09:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 none of that is advancing the goals of FOSS communities. And I think that is why people (hopefully politely?) ask that they do not label their goods or services "Open Source".That's all.
(DIR) Post #AYf5CTa7KCAv2ioTI0 by TheSteve0@data-folks.masto.host
2023-08-12T16:16:55Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
You mean OSI license approved FOSS communities. And to them I say - sorry but Open Source has a very broad meaning. Stick the OSI part in front of what you want to protect.For everyone but hyperscalers, when done as intended, these new licenses retain all my freedoms and help support the open source technology I love to thrive. Right now, the OSI licenses allow hyperscalers to further consolidate power and stifle some of the motivation for innovation.
(DIR) Post #AYf5CUVXsg71upgKno by kfogel@kfogel.org
2023-08-12T17:35:27.996955Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 If BSL is a better way, then why does it seem to be so important to so many of its advocates to call it āopen sourceā?As @msw has accurately pointed out, itās not. So just call it by its own name and see how it fares. āBusiness sourceā is even the same number of syllables as āopen sourceā (since ābusinessā is effectively a two-syllable word in spoken English) ā so itās not even harder to say.When I see people straining to claim that X is really the same as Y, when theyāre not the same in some important way, then usually whatās going on is that they want X to receive for free some of the good will and positive connotations that Y has accumulated over time. But Y accumulated those vibes by being Y, not by being something different from Y.I agree with Mattās prediction that BSL is not going to take over the role currently occupied by open source licensing. Whether weāre right or wrong about that, itās just a prediction: weāll all know soon enough. But in order for there to be something to predict ā in order for there to be different possible futures here at all ā we have to start from the key distinction that would make those futures differ in the first place.What I suspect will actually happen is that many large-scale tech companies will establish a pattern of releasing their latest version of some piece of software under BSL, and simultaneously re-publish the immediately previous version under an open source license. People who want the very latest bits, and who donāt care about freedom-of-use restrictions, will use the BSL version. People who want open source will stay on the one-release-behind track, and all the distros will package the latter. The company doing most of the upstream maintenance will figure out some way to deal with bug reports that come from one release behind but that often might apply to the latest release too; thatās a solveable problem.If my prediction turns out to be correct, that will prove @msw@mstdn.socialās point. After all, why bother releasing previous versions under an OSI-approved open source license if there is no substantive difference between the BSL and open source?And note that this is close to what Hashicorp (to pick a prominent recent example) is doing right now. Their Licensing FAQ says:BSL is an alternative to closed source or open source licensing models. Under BSL, the source code is publicly available. Non-production use of the code is always free, and the licensor can also make an Additional Use Grant allowing production use under specific restrictions. Source code is guaranteed to become open source at a certain point in time.* ā¦And the license itself specifies that software will automatically transition to MPL four years after release no matter what ā even if Hashcorp takes no other steps.So apparently even the licensor agrees that there is a difference!Again, in practice, I think most companies will probably move their open source releases to be earlier than their specific BSL configuration promises. But even if they donāt, itās quite clear that those actually publishing under this license understand that itās different from open source.
(DIR) Post #AYfLpO1jVc2ANNJ26C by tychosoft@fosstodon.org
2023-08-12T19:37:43Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kfogel @TheSteve0 @msw I predict instead that we will see forks, at least from the last oss version of an existing project, and those forks will both diverge and improve rapidly. The forked version will become more popular and the BSL version will be stuck, unable to use code from the fork (licensed on a real OSS license), while the fork will similarly ignore work done in the BSL version so it will become more different over time.
(DIR) Post #AYfLpP4FdjdtbTUYfA by kfogel@kfogel.org
2023-08-12T20:41:49.906431Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@tychosoft @TheSteve0 @msw I hope you're right, @tychosoft , but I think it might be hard for a fork to get momentum when there's a liberally licensed and more recent version of the code available.
(DIR) Post #AYfOcOyQyeBtPVGMjo by immibis@social.immibis.com
2023-08-12T19:51:43.287380Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@kfogel @TheSteve0 @msw "Under BSL, the source code is publicly available. Non-production use of the code is always free, and the licensor can also make an Additional Use Grant allowing production use under specific restrictions."This is not open source. This is not like open source. This is not a variant of open source. It's simply a proprietary license. No ifs or buts. Sometimes these licenses where you can see the source code but can't use it are called "visible source" or "source available" licenses.
(DIR) Post #AYfOcPlM2lK3rE9QzQ by TheSteve0@data-folks.masto.host
2023-08-12T20:05:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@immibis @kfogel @msw That is an interesting cherry pick from the FAQ"10. What are the usage limitations for HashiCorpās products under BSL?All non-production uses are permitted. All production uses are allowed other than hosting or embedding the software in an offering competitive with HashiCorp products or services."https://www.hashicorp.com/license-faq#What-are-the-usage-limitations-for-HashiCorp's-products-under-BSLAnd I agree it's a bad situation. One I put at the feet of the old guard and hyperscalers
(DIR) Post #AYfOcQcspk8mXFCBQO by msw@mstdn.social
2023-08-12T20:14:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 @immibis @kfogel I think one has to hold those that make their own decisions responsible.I think Amazon, Google, and even Microsoft (I can't believe I'm saying this, but also elated) are doing nothing wrong by using FOSS in full compliance with the licenses that were voluntarily used to make it available to the public, growing the public commons of FOSS available for ALL to use.
(DIR) Post #AYfOcRHeOAkaZgGjy4 by immibis@social.immibis.com
2023-08-12T20:15:04.120152Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@msw @TheSteve0 @kfogel who's complaining about Amazon, Google or Microsoft in this thread?
(DIR) Post #AYfOcS0fgmlMpJKh8q by TheSteve0@data-folks.masto.host
2023-08-12T20:18:28Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@immibis @kfogel @msw all the people favoring and boosting my post Do you not acknowledge that these licenses arose because of the way in which hyperscalers hosted some open source projects?
(DIR) Post #AYfOcSq4bfsbOjNkGG by msw@mstdn.social
2023-08-12T20:22:01Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 @immibis @kfogel AWS pioneered a business model with RDS. Software producers who were *not* in the business of offering their software as cloud services. They wanted to enter that business and have exclusive access to that business model. They wanted to use exclusive rights to, well, exclude others.The rest is the narrative from my POV.
(DIR) Post #AYfOcTWG4pcjVZ7R0y by immibis@social.immibis.com
2023-08-12T20:23:24.140618Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@msw @TheSteve0 @kfogel Open source devs on MariaDB or PostgreSQL couldn't care less whether you're hosting it as a cloud service or not. They do NOT want exclusive rights to any business model.Maybe they wish they made it AGPL so that AWS would have to contribute its changes back, but that's a separate (though related) issue.
(DIR) Post #AYfOcUKx2MAo2mpv1s by TheSteve0@data-folks.masto.host
2023-08-12T20:28:06Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@immibis @kfogel @msw postgresql is owned by a foundation and Oracle could care less about MySQL. That's a different use case and I think OSI licenses work great for them. To be clear OSI licenses are my favorite. But I respect what Hashicorp is doing and still consider their software open source. I do think their license is a bit broad by including not-hosted but commercially competitive as restricted
(DIR) Post #AYfOcV6SBkAeQ73r4S by immibis@social.immibis.com
2023-08-12T20:28:53.059288Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 @kfogel @msw Most people couldn't care less about MySQL. After Oracle tried to coup it, it's MariaDB now. Hashicorp software is not open source (except for the previous versions which they made open source)
(DIR) Post #AYfOcVqBRikahwSNLk by immibis@social.immibis.com
2023-08-12T20:33:48.548707Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 @kfogel @msw In general, corporations will not make open-source software because they rely on building walls around things in order to extract profit.Red Hat's support contract model is a very rare exception, not the norm.
(DIR) Post #AYfOcWc2Zn216Mqawa by msw@mstdn.social
2023-08-12T20:34:33Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@immibis @TheSteve0 @kfogel it is so rare, it is still *very* misunderstood.
(DIR) Post #AYfOcXM7oRtXPIPOm8 by msw@mstdn.social
2023-08-12T20:36:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@immibis @TheSteve0 @kfogel the cloud services model is far easier to grok.That's why I think some software producers want to be the only game in town that can use it.But that is not necessarily the best scenario for consumers...
(DIR) Post #AYfOcY1bKF4VTvoWQK by TheSteve0@data-folks.masto.host
2023-08-12T20:38:08Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@msw @immibis @kfogel but I would argue having 3 800 lb gorillas controlling that much of the market is not good for users OR open source in general (note the lack of the OSI approved š)
(DIR) Post #AYfOcYn6Td4LrG2SSu by kfogel@kfogel.org
2023-08-12T21:13:03.588138Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@TheSteve0 @msw @immibis There are two distinct conversations going on at once here. It would be useful to separate them:1. "Open source" is a term. What is the meaning of that term? When person X uses that term, can person Y rely on X having intended a certain, specific meaning?2. What are the practical effects of the BSL versus truly open source licenses (or "OSI-approved" license, as @TheSteve0 prefers to call them).Regarding 1:There is a clear, longstanding, and industry-wide agreement that "open source" *means* OSI-approved, and that it refers exactly to the set of licenses that come with all of the freedoms specified in the Open Source Definition. That's what the term was coined to mean in the first place, when referring to software. Historically, the term didn't arise from some gradual evolutionary process of language usage. It was explicitly coined (by Christine Peterson), and then consciously promoted by a group of people (who founded the Open Source Initiative) that Peterson was part of, to mean exactly this specific thing. Today, the executives, lawyers, and communications people at virtually every major tech company, government agency, NGO, etc, are all been very clear that when they use the term they intend it to mean OSI's definition of "open source".There are [so many receipts](https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40#issuecomment-540283087) on this that at this point if someone doesn't believe it, it's because they've chosen not to believe it.Yes, I know, obviously, language only means what people agree it means and all that. But to the extent that words have meaning at all, "open source" means what we're saying it means. You can hand someone a bottle of lemonade and call it "milk" if you want, and you can claim that for you, the word "milk" is very broad and includes lemonade. But that's a silly way to use language, so let's not do that.Regarding 2:The data is still out on this part. You have one prediction -- if I understand it correctly, that BSL-style licensing will essentially replace open source, e.g., the people currently contributing to open source projects will in the future be contributing to BSL projects. Other people have other predictions. It's an interesting discussion, and I look forward to us all knowing the answer within a few years.However, ignoring the well-understood meanings of key terms in this discussion, or pretending that the distinctions those terms were coined to reflect don't actually exist, does not make the discussion easier to have. The distinctions are real; we might as well preserve our ability to talk about them.