An interesting approach is what cockroachdb did, which basically forbid this very specific use case, and is otherwise standard open-source.
I have no qualms with what they’ve done. It’s their intellectual property and they can do as they see fit. But it’s not open source. There’s plenty of proprietary software that also provides the source code (generally without support).
Maybe we need to settle on a new term like “source available”. Or “source provided”. But it’s not open source.
To quote Arthur Dent, it’s almost, but not entirely unlike, closed sourced.
I think that calling them “source available” or “source provided” does them a disservice as it implies that you can't modify/distribute/use it.
If I want to use a bit from their UI component generator in my commercial software, am I violating their license?
This is why real open source is so important to distinguish -- I don't want to have to worry about this sort of thing, let alone bring in lawyers to help me decide.
Don't get me wrong, or take this as ungrateful. I'm still glad it exists, and am really happy that this works as their business model. I think it is valuable to use as a learning tool (how did they go about solving x problem?), as well as valuable for use in other Open Source software. I hope more companies are able to use licenses like this in the future, to be totally honest. I just want it to be distinguished from true Open Source software.
It depends on the license. Based on what I have read about the cockroachdb, SSPL (mongo) it seems that you can do that (but I am not sure about it, someone more knowledgable might be able to verify it).
> This is why real open source is so important to distinguish
Consider another case then. You are making a proprietary software that you might or might not be planning to sell and you get the ui generator from an open source software. Are you free to do that? Truth is that just like above the answer is "it depends on the license". GPL will not let you do it while MIT will. LGPL will let you do it if you make the ui generator a library that you dynamically link with and publish your changes to it, while MPL... I have no idea, I think it works on a per-file bases.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/15/technology/amazon-aws-clo...
[2] https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/opensource/setting-the-record-s...
So much wrong in this world that we can't predict and handle ahead of time.
Really I think we just need a new terms like unencumbered software (do anything), open license software (give credit and include source code), trapped software (beware patent minefield or infections nature), etc. Because frankly people toss around incompatible definitions of open source all the time.
I think it's a matter of people with vested interests throwing spaghetti against the wall until something sticks. We've often seen cries of "But how will programmers get paid if everything is free?", and "You don't need to modify the code as long as you can see it", and "Free and open source software is incompatible with commercial endeavours". What's new now is, "If you go with a free or open source piece of software, you are playing into the hands of the likes of Google who will gobble you up". This approach has be demonstrably far more successful than others.
From the perspective of someone who values free (as in freedom) software, I'm wary of diluting the brand of both free software and open source software. I think it only really serves the interests of people who do not value free and open source software. Given that the OSI actually has a trademark for open source, I hope they enforce it. I'm worried they don't have the resources to do so, though.
They don't. They have a trademark for "Open Source Initiative Approved License".
There are no legal ramifications to using the term -- I can state everything I do behind closed doors is open source, and I can only judged socially by my peers.
A cynic always looks cleverer than someone who takes people at their word. I prefer to do the latter even if I look stupid.
Companies like CockroachDB and Sentry invest years of work and millions of dollars making useful products. A concern they have is that someone swoops in just as they find product market fit and hosts a version of their own. If AWS/Azure/GCP offer hosted CockroachDB, fewer people will pay Cockroach for their product. It’s as simple as that.
At the same time these companies also want to make sure that firms have the option of self hosting. If you’re too small to be able to afford it, self host. If you’re large and need to be on prem for regulatory reasons, self host. If you want to make a custom fork, go right ahead. If you want to upstream any changes, you can also do that. Customers have options! The only companies left out in the cold are AWS/Azure/GCP.
This seems like a reasonable compromise to me. I’d rather these companies stayed in business and continued innovating rather than being put out of business by the big boys.
When they say this is their reason for going with a different license, I believe them. I don’t come up with conspiracy theories that they’re maliciously trying to harm something I love. Even if I was prone to conspiracy theories, I’d at least come up with a mechanism for _how_ the movement would be harmed. I wouldn’t just fling a serious accusation at people who are working hard just for the sake of farming upvotes
Look, free software and open source have a certain tradeoff and definition. If you don't like it, don't use the license and don't call your products open or free software.
> This means that CockroachDB core is no longer Open Source (according to OSI’s Open Source Definition), although the complete source code is still available, and any commercial usage is allowed with the one exception of building a DBaaS
https://www.cockroachlabs.com/blog/oss-relicensing-cockroach...
> Although we’ve come to refer to the BSL as eventually open-source since it converts to an OSI-approved license at the conversion date, due to the grant restriction, it is formally not an open-source license.
https://blog.sentry.io/2019/11/06/relicensing-sentry
Does that satisfy you?