Hacker News Reader

Comment by UltraViolence | Hacker News Reader

People need to stop mucking around with abusing open-source and open-source licenses.

If you want to become a millionaire make your software product commercial. If you want it to be open-source, keep it that way forever and don't start complaining "Oh, I really want to be a millionaire but I'm not because all these people are using my code for free! Now all you millions of people who are using my code should pay me from now on!"

I believe charging for software after you've gained a user base in the millions is akin to a rug-pull scam. I even believe that criminal liability comes into play here.

It's a good thing the .NET Foundation expels all the projects that change their licensing to commercial.

View on HN

So the maintainers should be legally required to maintain the software, for free, forever, just because you depend on it? That is an insane level of entitlement.

So long as it's their software they can change the license of new versions as they desire. If they decide to change the license and you depend on the software, you can maintain a fork of the project. I'm sure you don't like that answer, but this is exactly why open source licenses offer no warranty or promise of support, and you willingly decided to rely on some software with such a license. You can't just pretend like this aspect of the license doesn't exist because it's inconvenient for you.

If you want guaranteed support for any software, hire someone, or do it yourself!

I think a lot of the controversy surrounding these situations is that people aren't educated about what open/free software really is, or the ideals behind it, or don't care and just want free stuff from other people.

The idea is that you can use source code, modify it and create derived works from it if you desire (normally with attribution or whatever), and with the GPL there is an additional restriction that derived works must also be GPL'd. Free software does not imply that people want to work for you for free and doesn't imply that they intend on supporting the project at all.

> So the maintainers should be legally required to maintain the software, for free, forever, just because you depend on it? That is an insane level of entitlement.

I didn’t get that, at all, from the GP. They just said that it’s not (in their opinion) fair to build up a user base that becomes dependent, then use that dependency as leverage.

That’s basically the Sackler Family method.

I release a bunch of code, as MIT. If someone wants to use it, fork it, sell it, whatever. Just don’t expect me to be on the hook for maintaining it, or guaranteeing it.

If I want to drastically change it, or even do something evil, like have it phone home, I could do that (I won’t). I could also change the license, going forward, as these folks did.

I’m under no obligation to maintain my stuff for any reason, other than I use it, myself, so I want it to be good.

That said, I consider myself to be an excellent steward, of really good software, that no one (except Yours Truly) uses. That’s fine with me, but I take great care of my stuff, anyway.

If I sign a contract, then that’s a different matter.

> They just said that it’s not (in their opinion) fair to build up a user base that becomes dependent, then use that dependency as leverage.

And saying this doesn't make any sense. Because being opensource means lack of vendor lock-in. There's no "dependency". As soon as a new license is adopted, the users of the previous version can still use that previous version because it is still opensource, and create a fork out of it.

> As soon as a new license is adopted, the users of the previous version can still use that previous version

Can they technically? If nobody stored a copy of the code, and the copyright owner decides to change the license, any subsequent copies are under the terms of the new license no?

If I use a service like GitHub, then it’s child’s play to get previous versions.

But that’s beside the point. If someone releases software without storing the whole build in configuration management, then I don’t feel particularly sorry for them.

> If I use a service like GitHub, then it’s child’s play to get previous versions.

And they could delete the repository. Even if they had a repository, as the copyright holders they could change the license retroactively. This is not a problem with a technical solution that I can see.

> as the copyright holders they could change the license retroactively

I hope they have very good lawyers, then. I'm not sure how they could enforce that.

> And they could delete the repository.

That's why I said what I said about configuration management.

I guess CM is no longer en vogue, these days. A main goal of CM, is to completely reproduce the build, from stored components, at any point in the product lifecyle.

With a lot of SaaS services, I guess that it's not really possible to do that, anymore, but I'd be pretty leery of basing a business on ephemeral resources. I'd at least get a maintenance or local duplication contract with the author.

> I hope they have very good lawyers, then. I'm not sure how they could enforce that.

Why? Like I said, unless someone has a copy obtained with the original license, then any subsequent copies are accepted with the new license. There's nothing in the law that says the copyright holder can't change the license.

> unless someone has a copy obtained with the original license

See my comment about "configuration management."

I'm sorry. If someone wants to call themselves an "engineer," then they need to act like an engineer, and that means things like good configuration management. In my opinion, and I'm just an unlettered redneck, self-taught cowboy, so I guess my opinion ain't worth squat, the term "engineer" connotes things like rigorous self-discipline, process discipline, and personal integrity.

Just the thought of someone releasing commercial, or commercial-grade software, without CM, sends chills down my spine. I guess that it's a statement on the current state of the industry, that people assume that CM is something that is "optional."

But you are talking about retroactive license change.

This would be great for patent troll law firms.

They can still use the library and even decompile it if necessary.

How is that any different from a major open source maintainer deciding to quit the project and leave it out of date? It’s an identical outcome for the end user of the OSS.

You wouldn’t demand that someone continues development of the project for free right? So they can either leave the project to rot, which seems morally fine to everyone, or they just also decided to start charging money for future updates.

What percentage of the user base is really affected by the license change?

you're leaving out that your GP said there should be criminal liability on the author of the software if they change their license

No. It just wasn’t really relevant to the argument that I should be forced to maintain something I wrote.

I disagree with the “criminal liability” thing. I understand why someone might feel that way, as many folks write software as “dependency aggregates,” but that’s a whole other argument, and I already know my opinions on that matter aren’t particularly welcome.

> So the maintainers should be legally required to maintain the software, for free, forever, just because you depend on it?

No, but I can see the following as not being unreasonable:

1. They can't retroactively change the terms of using the previous versions or accessing it's code.

2. They should maybe start their new commercial version under a different name. They built a reputation on an open source brand, and they had other people promote them because of that open source status. I'm not sure the commercial version should get to start from the brand reputation that the open source version's name automatically conveys. This i think is a big part of the bait and switch the OP was referring to and it seems like a somewhat reasonable compromise.

I'm not saying these apply fully to this situation, but as maybe just general guidelines if moving from an open source model to a commercial model.

> 1. They can't retroactively change the terms of using the previous versions or accessing it's code.

They already can’t do that.

When they started this project they should've asked themselves if they wanted to be reimbursed for their effort. If so, they should've started a company and sold the software commercially, releasing the code as an aside.

Instead they bait users into believing this is a hobby project by some smart engineers who do this in their spare time to produce software that's a boon to all Mankind. Afterwards they start complaining this company or that company is making money off their effort and start making avaricious changes to the license.

I myself have released several open-source projects, but don't intend charging for them. OTOH users can't expect me to add features or functionality (I do guarantee that security errors will be fixed in short order). I'm also working on commercial software, asking myself beforehand if I wanted to release it as free software or make money from it. Considering the effort I decided to do the latter.

>If you want to become a millionaire

Strawman

>I even believe that criminal liability comes into play here

The gross entitlement of FOSS users is the primary reason I will never contribute in substance to open source software. In what world is a 'userbase in the millions' not an indicator of the software's value, and how are the developers deserving of criminal liability for wanting to make money from it? What, they should perform highly-skilled software engineering for free while their efforts are the basis of profit generation for many others?

I don't think your last comment addresses what they were getting at. If someone open sources something with a permissive license with all things pointing to keeping that license, and then switches it up once they get users, then that is a bit of a bait and switch. It is different than saying from the get-go "hey, we need money to develop this, so please pay".

Is it really entitlement to be a little upset at having built large things on top of permissively licensed software only for that software to suddenly become locked behind a new license?

Yep.

It’s true when companies do it with a “loss leader” to destroy the competition.

It’s true when an open source library swaps to proprietary license.

Who wouldnt pick a good, free option for something?

…how do you tell the difference between a “real” open source project and a bait and switch?

Is this the future? Where all good things are gone and we have to skeptical of anyone giving away something for free?

Screw that.

If you’re selling something, then sell it.

If you’re giving something away, then make your intentions clear.

If you’re giving it away with the intent to destroy your competition, you’re being a dick.

If you change your mind and want to do something different, abandon your dishonestly earned network effects and start a new commercial project where the intent is clear from the start.

I wish the Six Labors folk the very best in any commercial endeavour they choose to undertake, but this sucks.

If the software versions prior to the licence change remains open source, and the new licence only affects development going forward, there shouldn't be any issue whatsover for users of the open source version.

Has there been an instance of a licence change closing off access to previously open source code? (Is that even possible to do when forks are trivially created?)

The copyright holder can always choose to close off access to its copies of previously open source code. They cannot retroactively revoke the license of other people who already have a copy, nor can they prevent its distribution under the original license.

Yea, they can keep using the old versions, but that locks them out of the new versions and breaks expectations, especially since they were a member of the .NET Foundation. So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license.

This whole thing just points out how hard all of this is to get right. I understand both sides. But I do at least get the feeling that the ImageSharp team is a bit high strung.

https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47

I think this is probably an intentional move to move away from Microsoft and the .NET Foundation in addition to trying to capitalize on people making a lot of money from the software package.

After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up. The vvvv tool follows a similar license of, it's free unless you make money from it.

>So it's up to them to keep using a version that won't get fixes or new features or accept the new license.

Users can always fork the old version. We can't force the ImageSharp team to maintain software under a licence they don't want.

>After having looked at the license, it seems reasonable enough to me aside from the technicalities others have brought up.

It's reasonable in theory, in practice I'd rather avoid entangling $WORK with potential liabilities. I prefer more clearcut licences (require payment for all commerical use or don't require at all).

> I prefer more clearcut licences (require payment for all commerical use or don't require at all).

I agree with that. I've always liked the way vvvv communicates their licensing:

* https://vvvv.org/blog/vvvv-gamma-licensing

* https://www.visualprogramming.net/#Licensing

* https://store.vvvv.org/

I've always been curious about how well it works for them.

Yes - I'd say it's nearly the definition of entitlement. I can totally understand why it would be frustrating, but to assume the people producing this resource are immune from paying the rent and would be forever is ignorant. People should consider that they ever got it for free as a bonus. If migrating away from FOSS is too upsetting , frustrating or painful - don't build on tools with questionable sustainability models from the start, or DIY.

It's also worth pointing out that it's only locked away for entities generating >= 1M/y USD revenue. I can't exactly feel sorry for them.

I was just adding some perspective that it's okay to be upset or frustrated without being entitled or ignoring the economic needs of the maintainers.

And yes, the particulars of this license seem more than reasonable from the standpoint of the threshold of needing to pay.

I should maybe point out that at one point, ImageSharp wanted Microsoft to stop their (still open source) graphics development and help contribute to ImageSharp.

https://github.com/dotnet/Microsoft.Maui.Graphics/issues/47

>I was just adding some perspective that it's okay to be upset or frustrated without being entitled or ignoring the economic needs of the maintainers.

I think being upset or frustrated that one has lost access to something useful that one also invested very little in is a fair/natural reaction (the free lunch is over), but I also think it would be unfair to direct that frustration at the people who were providing that resource to begin with. It also seems unfair when the resource, as it stands right now, continues to be available in its current state; one only loses out on additional, future value, which I would argue one has no real claim to anyway (in general).

Your comment didn't say that it is fair [to direct..] (so take this comment as a further qualification if anything), but it seems to be one of the prevailing attitudes about this kind of thing, and where (at least) I see the entitlement coming through.

It disregards everyone who helped ImageSharp get to where it is today. Are the other code / issue contributors and evangelists getting paid for their efforts?

The comment from Akka's relicense [1] applies just as well here:

"""

1) Project is open source

2) People use the project because it is open source

3) People contribute bug reports and fixes, creating value and improving the open source project because it is open source

4) People spread the word about the project, free marketing because it is open source

5) Maintainers decide to relicense, privatizing the value created by the community.

The "success" was a social phenomenon, not merely the efforts of the maintainers.

Relicensing is a betrayal of the community that was built around the software.

"""

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32755405

> Are the other code / issue contributors and evangelists getting paid for their efforts?

Nobody is getting paid for the pre-license-change version. Which remains open-source under the existing license forever.

I think the license change is a lousy move, but the software isn’t suddenly behind a new license. New versions will be. If there’s a community behind the software they can fork it.

You’re not entitled to someone else’s work forever just because something was open sourced. I think it’s a bad move, but I’ve no right to expect others to do future work for me. They made it possible for others to carry it on, if they’re willing to do the work.

> Is it really entitlement to be a little upset at having built large things on top of permissively licensed software only for that software to suddenly become locked behind a new license?

Yes.

> entitlement /ɪnˈtʌɪt(ə)lmənt/

noun the fact of having a right to something.

"The gross entitlement of FOSS users"

I will somehow survive my entire life without any of your withheld contributions.

Unsure what you're attempting to contribute to the discussion with this comment.

same

> If you want to become a millionaire make your software product commercial. If you want it to be open-source, keep it that way forever and don't start complaining "Oh, I really want to be a millionaire but I'm not because all these people are using my code for free! Now all you millions of people who are using my code should pay me from now on!"

This reminds me of what Marak did after he went on a rant that he's not paid enough for his effort.

https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/dev-corrupts-...

They're only trying to charge for new versions. You're being ridiculous.

So there os no in-between between open source and millionaire?

How about, if you can afford it and use the software, help financing it's maintenance?

You're arguing for literal slavery here.

"I came to rely on the free thing you gave me, now you need to keep supporting it forever, for free, or else you're a criminal."

No. You have the right to keep using the software provided for free forever. You don't have a right to have the work product of a person or group for free forever.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com