"yes, we love open source, but we don't know how to make money out of Amazon so we want it not to be open source but pretend it is"

The end of the story seems to be that it's just not possible to make an open source license significantly better than the AGPL for now because there's always potential loopholes when trying to define online stuff. Either you adapt your business model to open source, or do what MongoDB is trying to do and adapt the idea of open source to your business model - which the OSI finds unacceptable

@espectalll It was one of the big stories of last year, but Commons Clause is not really an open source license. I think they submitted it to OSI and it was rejected.

Also I'm not a copyright lawyer but my interpretation is that with copyleft licenses you can grant extra permissions as an addition to the license but I don't think you can add restrictions which conflict with the four freedoms. Commons clause tries to do that.

@bob I know perfectly well about Commons, it's SSPL the one I didn't know anything about

@[email protected] @espectalll Commons Clause is essentially trying to create a backdoor for corporate interests to exfiltrate projects from FOSS and make them proprietary.

@espectalll At first few glances, this doesn't seem like a bad thing? Just asserting copyleft harder.

@anjum The problem is how you actually make that copyleft. You can't just set specific terms by purpose, trying to keep it all copyleft seems to always leave loopholes (you can always run code in more convoluted ways that get out of a definition), and to get out of that issue you would have to include software that's not directly related to get copylefted

It's always GPL for me

Kiss and greets go to rms

@espectalll commons clause is not open source, obviously
But what is wrong with SSPL?

@Skoll3 keep in mind that article isn't from the people doing SSPL

SSPLv1 isn't considered open source and v2 is still having a hard time being accepted by the OSI due to the weird way they're trying to do copyleft

@espectalll if you use permissive licenses you don't have to worry about abuse

@feld actually that's exactly the issue they claim to have, that they're not getting contributions back because of loopholes on AGPL making it too permissive

@espectalll If your software is not trivial and if your software is being actively developed people don't successfully fork it. It's much easier to submit your changes upstream than to pay a team to constantly try to rebase their fork. This has been proven time and time again in the BSD ecosystem. Those who fork regret it and suffer the consequences of millions of dollars of technical debt.

@feld ...yeah, sure, but here they're claiming they're just not profiting in any way from what companies like Amazon or Microsoft do. They make their own modifications and don't even share them or have to pay a penny, they claim.

@feld @espectalll I hear what you're saying here, but isn't Amazon Linux (RHEL fork, approximately) basically a counter example?

@telent @espectalll is Amazon Linux beating RHEL at their own game? Is it more than just a rebranding or slimmed down image for their infrastructure?

I've never even heard of "Amazon Linux", by the way...

@feld @espectalll amazon linux is the path of least resistance if you want a rpm-based distribution running on your aws cloud instances: it has preinstalled all the aws bits you need for easily managing those boxes at scale. By making it easier to choose that over installing and paying for rhel - they aren't beating redhat at redhat's game, they're making their own rules up for a completely different game.

@telent @espectalll I don't understand -- are you saying that a distro re-spin/customization is somehow an evil fork? Because that's not even a fork, IMO. Not in the slightest. They're just optimizing the OS for their specific platform. I'm sure they stripped out all RedHat trademarks because it's not an officially supported OS and they're serving packages from their own internal mirrors which are just alternative builds of the SRPMs.

Call me when they've actually forked *code*. Like massive changes to RPM/yum/dnf, for example.

If anything we should be mad at RedHat for forking the Linux kernel and having patches/changes that are not upstream in vanilla.

The FreeBSD AMI images are also different from the FreeBSD installation media, too. It's not a fork.

@feld @espectalll whether they've forked the code or not is largely immaterial, I think. What matters is if they've established themselves as supplier of software (as a service) to people who would otherwise have spent money with "upstream" and thereby supported upstream development.

@feld @espectalll and for the record I didn't say anything about "evil". You could argue that they're eating red hat in the same way red hat took chunks out of Solaris/proprietary Unix - not saying it's good or bad, just that there are winners and losers

@telent @espectalll Is it a fork or is it the inclusion of some additional software and kernel modules enabled by default to support the platform?

Sounds to me like RedHat should include the support in an image and ship it. It doesn't seem complicated at all.

To be honest I highly doubt that the managing director of Bain Capital shares Rms Stallman's passion for libre software aka "open source". "Free "as in free beer, not something vulture :acab: capitalist like ;) same with "freedom to innovate". These corporation aholics smash intention of good in science and engineering

@espectalll nothing of value was lost with that though, mongo is one of the worst pieces of storage software I’ve ever seen

Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!