Only if we let it, and stop shouting about it and finding alternatives every time a company does this.
This isn't a new thing; companies have been trying to play "almost open source" games for decades, and they'll continue playing those games as long as it either works or doesn't have sufficiently large penalties for trying. (Much as companies will continue violating copyleft licenses as long as they either get away with it or the penalties for trying are simply an expected part of the risk.)
The best possible response to a company doing this is that someone forks the code, starts or expands a competitor, and the original company's revenue drops massively as a deterrent.
Example of the last time this worked?
https://investor.oracle.com/investor-news/news-details/2023/...
Oracle decided to make Hudson commercial, it was forked and Jenkins is still around but Hudson is dead.
Turns out Jenkins development needs to be sponsored somehow.
but still manages to suck the air out of the room when you want Elasticsearch because AWS already has the company's billing details and no one wants to figure out paying another provider.
I don't think this is happening at all. Open source means the same thing it's always meant. Some people are just retreating from open source. Which is fine, they should be writing Free Software anyway if they want the world to have it, or use proprietary licenses if they don't. Otherwise very wealthy people will live on your back.
But :shrug: I guess different people care about different things, is what I've realized watching these discussions unfold.
But I do think this purist perspective on open source is just going to result in more Snowflakes and fewer Hashicorps, because why bother with this fight?
Orgs like Hashicorp clearly think they benefit by pretending to be open source.
They could simply stop being disingenuous about their source available proprietary software, and nobody would stop them.
But while that's what I think, it isn't at all the view espoused here by Hashicorp. They aren't claiming this is open source. They are accepting the OSI definition and not claiming their new license falls within it.
They aren't being disingenuous. You're putting words in their mouth, and then getting mad at them about those words they didn't say.
No, they say open source needs to evolve, the implication this is an evolution (not devolution) of open source.
Their announcement talks about how they spoke to OSS experts. That's not relevant: the experts would simply have said: that's not open source.
Hashicorp several times say the BSL is permissive. Permissive is a well established term in software licensing. No, the BSL is not. The BSD and MIT and Apache licenses are permissive.
Finally there is this claptrap from their FAQ:
> 17. Does HashiCorp still believe in open source? > > Yes. [...]
"implication"
> the experts would simply have said: that's not open source.
Presumably the experts did tell them that it is not an open source license, which is why they chose not to claim that it is.
> Permissive is a well established term in software licensing. No, the BSL is not.
I think BSL easily fits the bill for the word "permissive".
It's just all so much gatekeeping, and it's really tiring.
Because companies keep bringing this fight.
Companies will naturally conclude they should just make proprietary software, which doesn't require a big fight. And I think that's a shame.
How many of these companies could exist if all these projects underpinning their own swapped to the SSPL, BSL, etc? And I don't mean now - once you reach a certain size, if you have to replace a bunch of dependencies, you have the resources to do it. But when these companies were smaller, would they have been able to create their own implementation of all these dependencies and still get their product to market? Would they have had the resources to commit to all of it? Would they have had the money to pay for non-FOSS options?
How many of these projects would still exist if the community couldn't commercialize them? We're not even talking about whether or not they ultimately end up contributing code back, etc., because it's not like these licenses give you some threshold of code contribution after which you can commercialize it. Sure, the possibility exists of some special private licensing agreement being struck, but that's possible with proprietary code, too.
Source available might sound fine from a personal use perspective, but it ignores the fact that the environment that made all of this possible would not have been possible under that model.
To me, the difference is that these are all building blocks rather than standalone products. I think of these commercial products as making sense for standalone services, rather than libraries and other building blocks.
But also: I think the business model that built all those open source building blocks has always been pretty shitty, relying on a lot of altruistic un- or poorly- compensated work from people. And I think that's bad. But I don't think demanding that companies making useful services also be subjected to a shitty business model is a good solution.
But, let's take just apache and nginx as an example: Lots of people offer just webhosting as a service. It's gotten less and less common now, with things like Squarespace, Shopify, Medium, etc. etc. etc., but once upon a time there were tens of thousands of companies that were making all their money by providing storage/compute/networking and a place to upload your HTML files, and then later adding in additional services like PHP and other scripting languages, MySQL for database hosting, etc.
Now, the context here is a bit different here, of course, particularly for Apache httpd. But Nginx has Nginx Plus, MySQL AB would license you a closed-source version or do the usual support/consulting/etc. stuff. But it's not hard to imagine a world where they could have easily said "Hey you know we're experts in running this stuff, we should just run it for people and charge them" - just like we see with a lot of these "open source" companies today.
There was never a general outcry about tons of businesses making money just hosting these open source services, even though the vast majority never contributed financially or otherwise to these open source projects. The only real difference I can see between then and now is simply what path the companies behind the projects, where applicable, have taken to monetize. Would the internet be a better place if MySQL AB moved to offering hosting as a service and put MySQL on the BSL, preventing all of these webhosting companies from having existed? If F5 had done it after acquiring Nginx? Cheap and plentiful webhosting is a big part of what grew the internet so quickly, particularly before the 'Web 2.0' days of social media sites centralizing so much of the traffic on the internet into a handful of places.
> But I don't think demanding that companies making useful services also be subjected to a shitty business model is a good solution.
Well, I'm not demanding a company do anything. I'm just saying that the internet as it exists today, including all of these companies we're talking about, would not exist if earlier on people had made the same choices they are. Open source is not about guaranteeing a viable business model to companies - it doesn't care about your business - it's about ensuring certain freedoms in software. And the internet we're discussing this on exists because of those freedoms it guaranteed.
If you can't build a viable business when abiding by those freedoms for whatever reason, then sure - go build proprietary software. I'm not going to call it or you evil. But I do take issue with a company using open source as a method to gain adoption, additional contributions, mindshare, etc. and then no longer being open source while talking about how they are an "evolution" of it. You're not an evolution of open source if you're removing freedoms.
Yes, the FSF has a general preference that people use copyleft licenses like the GPL, but they recognize that permissive licenses meet the Free Software Definition.
The difference between free software and open-source is a matter of marketing. Open-source is a way of presenting free software to businesses and investors. Free software is an unabashedly political movement, openly concerned first and foremost with the public good. But the licenses themselves and the software itself, those things are identical.
We've had "source available" for a long time, which means something else.
I don't disagree that people may still use SA software more as time goes by, but I would argue that when possible people will prefer open source controlled by entities that keep it such.
I’d kill for your confidence
This has been the case since the 2000s, as companies want the branding without the openness. This is extremely well worn by now.
I argue that companies who want it both ways are continuing to throw up chaff. But we know this chaff extremely well.
None of this discussion is new. "open core" has always been a euphemism for "proprietary."
Yes. And in some ways, source available licensing is a nicer model for proprietary software than open core. At least with the former you can actually see all of the code to inspect how it works when something is broken.
Bleh. Every business wants to build on software freedom but they don't really want to see others freely build on their own software.
On the other hand, if popular software becomes faux-pen source (I read that somewhere recently) and community members stop contributing, it's a loss too because it means we all become takers on whatever company's terms.
Your almost certainly right about the window shifting, I'm going to keep complaining anyway.
perhaps according to Hashicorp's marketing team, otherwise I haven't seen any evidence this is the case