> We hope to better define what sustainable open source models can look like, including semi-restrictive licenses like the BUSL
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 odd that someone who has "open source in his blood" was unaware that "open source" is a technical term for a particular sort of license, not "a simple English phrase".
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.
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...
Again this feels like it's missing the point and issue that people have. Stop trying to drag down the "open source" term to a place that suits your business needs. Just because it's not sustainable for you and your business model, doesn't mean open source isn't working for others and/or other areas.
One of the cringiest articles I've skimmed in a while. Their position is simultaneously "trust me we know open source" and "we just made a rookie mistake".
> If you’re unfamiliar, the BUSL can easily be summarized as an eventual open-source license. That is, it’s a restrictive license that after a period of time will convert to another license, in our case Apache-2.0.
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.
It is accurate, this is how BUSL works :). Its irrevocable, the licensed code MUST convert to a license that is compatible with the GPL within a maximum of 4 years. It can be any license, so long as its compatible, and it can of course be sooner than 4 years.
I agree with your sentiment, its escrowed open source, which might be a turn-off for some I guess.
The only mistake Sentry made was caving to peer pressure. OSI does not own the term "open source". They applied to the USPTO for the trademark and were denied [1]. They self-admit that they "must rely on market pressure" because they have no legal standing.
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.
> The only mistake Sentry made was caving to peer pressure. OSI does not own the term "open source".
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.
While the Creative Commons has a "non-commercial use" license, a work under such a license would not qualify as a "free cultural work" [1], which is the equivalent designation as Open Source Software for non-software works. Free Cultural Works give everyone the same essential freedoms that are required by the Open Source Definition.
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.
> It's neither open source, nor a free cultural work.
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.
Readit News
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...
https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage
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 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....
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...