Hacker News Reader

Comment by bmitc | Hacker News Reader

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?

View on HN

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com