| HN Mirror

I've always seen open source as more of a spectrum. On one extreme, you have gpl3 stuff coming from the church of GNU itself. Moving up the spectrum you have stuff like the Linux kernel or certain CNCF projects, which can be used in proprietary distributions etc. Above that you'll have company specific licenses like the Amazon software license or whatever hashicorp+elastic are doing these days. At some point you're with RHEL where you need to sign a license to get their source, and above that you're signing ndas, and above that its closed source, and above that they're cryptographically obfuscating their source code with anti reverse engineering licensing.

I appreciate open source in all it's forms, as it's so much easier to 1. Read the code in case of a bug or just to understand your dependencies better, 2. Many of the semi closed licenses still allow you to learn things like syntax for GitHub actions or do analytics or whatever, which is still more value than an entirely closed system, and 3. It allows me to reproduce binaries and independently audit security.

That said, I'm worried about a tragedy of the commons situation. I'm not a fan of capitalism, but at the end of the day I can't pay for housing or taxes in clout or goodwill, and the only way I see likely to both attract talent and survive is one which works within the system while sacrificing their principles as little as possible. These wonderful engineers at elastic and hashicorp and pulumi and every other company mentioned in this thread need to eat.

I'm not saying I have an answer, but I am saying that I respect and understand why companies like elastic and hashicorp are resorting to drastic measures. If the choice is between either of those companies going under or having their source code come with a little bit more restrictions, I'd chose the latter. I'd much rather them have a noncompete clause in their license than have them just shut the window into their source code altogether.