Comment by mikekchar | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mikekchar | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

At the risk of being cynical, I don't think it was common to toss around incompatible definitions of open source until very recently. There seems to have been a considerable push by a number of people to dilute the meaning of open source -- in my tin-foil-hat opinion with the intent of destroying the community behind it. Free and open source software has weathered these kinds of attacks many times before and it certainly looks very similar to the kinds of things I've seen before.

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.

> There seems to have been a considerable push by a number of people to dilute the meaning of open source -- in my tin-foil-hat opinion with the intent of destroying the community behind it.

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

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.

I specifically referred to Sentry and CockroachDB in my comment

> 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?

> Given that the OSI actually has a trademark for open source

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com