Let's Talk About Open Source
blog.sentry.io
blog.sentry.io
The BUSL, by the author's own admission, is not open source. Therefore, its inclusion is mutually exclusive with a "sustainable open source model".
If you don't want to use an open source license, then don't use an open source license. Stop trying to convince the rest of us that your not-open-source license has any place in open source software; such gaslighting reeks of deception and bad faith, and nullifies whatever sort of "apology" this post ostensibly contains.
Transparency is a dependency of trust. I usually say that (like a broken record) as it pertains to code, but it applies just as much to business practices and conduct. If you can't be honest about whether or not your software is open source, how am I supposed to trust any other aspect of it?
I find it even more odd that he would have originally used any license, open source or otherwise, without actually understanding what the license allows.
In any case, I certainly don't fault them for using whatever license they like, and the BUSL is not a terrible one. I just found the lack of understanding exhibited as really strange.
If anyone were to actually use them, they'd wedge the open source community into a group that can basically treat it as open source, and those who can't. I dread to think about what happens if any wedged licensed program becomes a widely used dependency. In that regard, these types of license should be thought of as a contaminate.
The divisive element is what's driving the visceral reaction, and if anything, I think it's healthy. It shows people care.
id Software serves as a good example of what should be done. They released their no longer profitable previous-generation game engines as plain open source. That's more respectful of community norms.
and related discussion on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36971490
Free software gives the rights to the USER - the software can be USED in any way without restriction.
The responsibilities kick in when re-distributing the software - you must pass on these rights.
The BUSL is not that, it is not a free software license.
Does anyone ever claim that they're trying to release free-software but not FSF free-software?
I think the issue is that the opposite of `closed-source` is clearly not `OSI Approved License(tm) open-source`.
If had the influence they like to claim with their "we invented the term open-source" myth, why don't they go invent some term for "non-closed source, non-OSI approved license(tm)" software, and everyone will use that.
BTW, here's a handy list of uses of `open-source` going back to 1985...
Seems that the term was already in existence, I guess that's why the OSI's attempt at "open-source(tm)" went down in flames...
Haven’t read the license but if it works as described I’d say it is open source. It has been irrevocably released to the open source ecosphere at a concrete future date. If someone handed you a post-dated cheque would you say “I didn’t get the money” or “they haven’t paid”? If his description is accurate it’s been released as Apache it’s just in public escrow.
I agree with your sentiment, its escrowed open source, which might be a turn-off for some I guess.
The OSI definition of open source is anti-labor and corporate friendly. There is no reason for them to exclude non-commercial use from their definition. Even the Creative Commons has a "non-commercial use" license. The economic downturn should be a wake-up call for labor to demand a more pro-worker definition.
The only "good" recognized alternative at this time is the FSF and their copyleft family of licenses. They are very much pro-user and anti-corporation. If anything, Sentry should have considered the AGPL instead of the BSL.
[1] https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source
I think when people make material available under a CC-BY-NC and call it "open source", the community should react the same way. It's neither open source, nor a free cultural work.
[1] https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/fr...
This is where the change needs to happen: "free culture work" and "open source" should not be conflated.
The article you linked demonstrates that the Creative Commons defines a spectrum of licenses [1]. The OSI should as well. They could then "approve" the BSL the same way the Creative Commons "approves" the NC licenses.
It would be better for the OSI to stay ahead of this rather than ignore or fight it. They could then champion their own definition of the software license spectrum rather than risk losing control of it.
[1] https://creativecommons.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/cc_li...
The overlap in mission between the OSI and Creative Commons is the "approved for free cultural works" label [1]. This came about during collaborations between the members of the Free and Open Source Software community and Creative Commons leadership in 2006. [2]
Software licenses with restrictions are nothing new or novel. From my perspective, "accepting" them isn't staying ahead, it's stepping backwards on a mission that has been a quarter century in the making.
[1] https://creativecommons.org/2008/02/20/approved-for-free-cul...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition_of_Free_Cultural_Wo...
I agree. After the last HN thread, and also zeeg's Twitter, I was disappointed to see him cave. There needs to be some real discussion here around the term, especially concerning the fact that OSI does not own the term. Caving to the mob^W^W"market pressure" with an apology for opinions on terms won't help kick off that hard discussion.
BUSL, SSPL, and ELv2 can be as-permissive, or even more permissive, than GPL in the majority use case.
Not all OSS is FOSS. And that's okay.
[1] https://github.com/keygen-sh/keygen-api/blob/master/LICENSE....
Not by OSI's definition, but by theirs. They can use it permissively, so it is to them.
One day they may understand what they didn't have to fight for. But I hope they don't.
Is GPL license virality a form of freedom?