[sanderjd]

First of all, you can "recall a gift", if it is legal. I don't think I've seen people arguing that these re-licensing actions are not legal.

But if you mean that you can't recall a gift without making people mad, then yep, that's true! But keeping people from being mad is not the only thing that matters.

But the real problem I have with, "I hope the lesson will be learned" is that the lesson people are learning is "don't try to build ambitious software requiring a lot of work from a dedicated core team using an open source license; you're going to find yourself damned if you do and damned if you don't".

And I think that really sucks! And sadly the ship has already sailed here. I'm certain we're going to see way fewer products with open source licenses because of all of this. And I think it's unlikely we'll even see as many products with "source available" licenses because, how is it worth the hassle to release source when the community has shown more good will to projects that are entirely proprietary?

I really think I'm going to look back at the last 15 years or so in awe at how often I had the luxury of digging into the behavior of software I rely on, by reading the code.

[snotrockets]

We're living in a society, with certain systems baked into it.

Fighting to change those systems and norms is a Good Thing™, but I'm too pessimistic to act today as if the change is coming tomorrow. I'll both work to change those systems, AND act as if they're here to stay.

[sanderjd]

I'm not sure if this was a purposeful allusion or not, but I entirely agree that you "can't recall a gift" in exactly the same sense that you can't keep talking on a payphone for a long time when someone is clearly waiting; because, you know, we're living in a society!!

[snotrockets]

Unlike the payphone analogy, where there is metering rules, and as long as you abide by them, you can keep talking, even if it's impolite, there is a legal definition for gifts (it is, after all, a transfer of ownership, and such things are regulated), which, as far as I know, matches the social norm of not being able to claw those back.

[sanderjd]

Ha, except, to go full circle, then if you're using that legal definition of a "gift" requiring a transfer of ownership, it's clear that open source software is not actually a gift, because there is no transfer of ownership.

You can't have it both ways! If it's a "gift" in the colloquial sense of something freely given, then it breaks social convention to claw it back, but it is not illegal. If you want to use the legal definition of a "gift" - ie. for tax purposes, implying a transfer of ownership - then contributions to open source software are not at all a "gift" in that sense.

[bornfreddy]

> And I think it's unlikely we'll even see as many products with "source available" licenses because, how is it worth the hassle to release source when the community has shown more good will to projects that are entirely proprietary?

This, thousand times. Looks like FOSS advocates feel so threatened by "source available" licenses that they will do everything possible to keep them from gaining momentum (see Commons Clause).

It's a shame really. It would be nice to have a standard and well known license that would both allow users to use software freely (for using and adapting) and still protect makers from their competitors (AWS comes to mind) undercutting them with their own product. Oh well.

EDIT: ...and here comes the first (anonymous) downvote. Proves my point about FOSS sentiment, I guess? Come on, it's a discussion, you can do better than that.

[pas]

what's the best version of the argument that these new BSL/SSPL licenses are bad, or that they are not in the spirit of FOSS?

[snotrockets]

FOSS originalists insist on no limitations on use of the software.

The FSF prohibits such in what they call freedom 0:

> The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).

And OSI explicitly forbids it in their open source definition:

> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a > specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from > being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

This rules out no-CSP licenses from those definition, as well as the original JSON license, as it used to read something like "this software shouldn't be used for evil". Those rules would also block banning software from being used for war crimes, human rights abuse, etc. And while I can understand the legal minefield with prohibiting some use, I'd really wish we had a good license that would indeed try to also curb using software for committing real atrocities (and not just possibly reducing shareholder value). But I digress.

[pas]

Sure, I know, but I mean that's just their subjective line in the sand. (Their maximal-freedom in this kind of infinite dimensional space.)

After all wouldn't a user be more free if they were able to just do whatever they want with it, not just run it? Ie. free to copy/modify/sublicense it in any way? Why is program execution more important than other use of the intellectual property?

If they want to maximize freedom for all potential users, then they ought to think about sustainability of the software. (As in economic incentives and market share and whatnot.) To me it seems they have a static worldview, the only thing they care about is that current set-in-stone version of the work, but that's basically putting their head into the cool refreshing sand of ignorance.

(That said, I'm nowhere near FSF/OSI circles (duh! :P), so I have no idea what's their current thinking of this. Maybe they are fully aware of this, but ... based on HN chatter it seems that they realized it's a hard problem and picked an oversimplified worldview as workaround, and now it's institutionalized denial.)

> And while I can understand the legal minefield with prohibiting some use, I'd really wish we had a good license that would indeed try to also curb using software for committing real atrocities.

I'm very skeptical of the practicality of it (after all if there's one thing states in general are good at, it is waging large scale wars and appropriating everything required for it), but if adding naive sounding clauses to FOSS-ish projects can prevent at least a few drone attacks it will have worth it.

Also, if people want to somehow put these use-restrictions into "the right context at the right time" then they can add a clause for that.

Ie. add a clause listing categories of uses and/or users (military, law enforcement, surveillance, and any state, state-owned, significantly state-sponsored entity) that require express written authorization from a named organization/institution, and folks could simply pick this when they start a project. (From Apache2-NATO to AGPL-ChaosComputerClub and so on.)

[dvfjsdhgfv]

> But the real problem I have with, "I hope the lesson will be learned" is that the lesson people are learning is "don't try to build ambitious software requiring a lot of work from a dedicated core team using an open source license; you're going to find yourself damned if you do and damned if you don't".

Yeah, for things running server-side that could be used by Amazon and Microsoft, they should use SSPL from the start. In this case everything is clear and everybody knows what to expect. For regular users, there is absolutely zero difference between SSPL and OSI-certified licenses.

[sanderjd]

Yes, they definitely should use something like that from the start, in my view. But I think they won't, because there is now a lot of evidence that this will result in a bunch of bad press, whereas just making it proprietary will go without comment.

What incentive do companies have to do this?

[pas]

the best strategy is still to start out with something that's press-positive (Apache2) and switch to BSL/SSPL after funding is secured. bad press will happen, but at least later, after the good press phase.

[sanderjd]

What is the advantage of that, over just building proprietary software?