Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by sideeffffect | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

sideeffffect

This BSL Business Source License is endorsed by neither the Free Software Foundation nor OSI

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical

That's a big red flag.

View on HN

I'll be interested to see where the community lands on this years from now. It's frustrating to see so many databases relicense under licenses that are almost OSS but not quite. Yet it's totally understandable - it's hard to pay database engineers when you give your product away and then AWS neuters your hosting and support business.

I just wish more developers could follow Grafana's path and switch to the AGPL when that becomes a problem, instead of switching to fauxpen source licenses.

I think its ok that we have innovation at legal front as well. And innovation requires exploration, choosing road not taken...

The innovation should take place within the FOSS space, though.

Why? FOSS is, at least initially, a charitable project. You work on a database for months then give it in its entirety away for free to all your potential customers and even your competitors with better established sales teams (e.g. Amazon).

They are explicitly not a charity. Isn’t it okay to be a for profit company that sells software with a closed copyrighted source?

Red Hat isn't a charity either. They make a nice profit, and all their stuff is FOSS.

Red Hat makes a Linux distribution. It was not their choice whether to be charitable or not, they are the recipients of the initial charity of the Linux founders and are bound by contract to continuing making their code open as a price for building on open code.

If Red Hat could change the license, would they? Maybe. (Not now but you can’t say the leadership won’t make that decision during financial crisis).

But there's more to a Linux distribution than just the kernel, and a lot of the other pieces aren't copyleft, so Red Hat can change the license, but they choose to keep them open source anyway.

No, it's a collaborative project initially. You work on a tool for months with other developers that each have their own employer, but all benefit from the sum of the work.

That there's freeloaders that benefit from the work without having to expend labour is a side-effect, not the primary motivation.

> I think its ok that we have innovation at legal front as well. And innovation requires exploration, choosing road not taken...

Chosing to release software under a non-FLOSS, proprietary license is hardly innovative, and I'm afraid trying to frame it that way sounds like you want to have your FLOSS cake and eat it too.

The AGPL is not without its own controversies and some would lump that under fauxpen source licenses too.

What controversies, and who would? The FSF (obviously), the OSI, the DFSG, and Fedora are all okay with it.

yep it's a big red NO for me for sure

Reply on news.ycombinator.com