7 ms·

The BSL doesn't make it closed source, it prevents a competitor from running their own DBaaS business using Cockroach as the backend. This has happened to vario

by zachmu 2y ago

The BSL doesn't make it closed source, it prevents a competitor from running their own DBaaS business using Cockroach as the backend. This has happened to various open source projects, AWS started selling their technology and ate their lunch. BSL is a totally fair compromise for commercial open source licensing imho. If you see BSL as the first step to an announcement like today's, that's a fair criticism. Not sure how often that happens. But BSL doesn't disqualify software from being open source.

jen20 2y ago
The BSL is not an OSI-approved license, so it’s certainly not “open source” by the commonly used definition. I agree it’s a reasonable license. But it’s not an open source license.
- LtdJorge 2y ago
  It even says it is not an open source license right in the license
- immibis 2y ago
  The OSI is a consortium of cloud platform vendors (really - check for yourself). Of course they'll define open source in a way that excludes licenses that restrict them from turning your work into closed-source cloud platforms. The good news is that we're not beholden to their definition as they have no official status whatsoever. We don't have to believe them just because they put the words Open Source in their company name. The BSL is clearly not open source since it requires approval from the licensor in certain applications, but the OSI also rejected the SSPL, which is just an extended AGPL that requires source code publication in even more cases, and is clearly open source because of that.
  - sgarland 2y ago
    I hadn’t considered this angle, stupidly. Now I have to rethink a minor belief system.
  - jen20 2y ago
    OSI, and the open source definition they produced, predate the very notion of public cloud by close to a decade. While you don’t have to accept the definition, you are out of step with the industry at large, who broadly use “open source” to refer to things which meet the OSI definition. There’s no need for a competing definition: it’s fine for software to not be open source. As to the specifics of SSPL, I personally don’t see the rationale for accepting AGPL but not SSPL.
    - AntonCTO 2y ago
      At large? As you can see, there is room for a community with a different view on that. My personal definition of an "open source license" is that, as the name implies, I can access the code, preferably without much gatekeeping (e.g., creating a free account in a private GitLab instance). And, to be honest, I prefer the BSL with an Additional Use Grant over any other license, because this is the most reliable option to ensure that the project has a future and won’t be abandoned because no one wants to invest their time for free.
      - immibis 2y ago
        You are welcome to choose that, but in my opinion, it isn't open source. I think open source should means anyone can contribute or take, and contributions are shared, without undue discrimination. Nobody is forced to work on the project, but if they are then they have to give the results of their work back to the common pool they took from. You have just as much power to keep the project going as anyone else does, including the current "maintainer".
        AntonCTO 2y ago
        > but if they are then they *have to* give the results of their work back to the common pool they took from Well, here we go. Your "open" isn't so open in the end.
        immibis 2y ago
        "open is when you have the right to make it closed"
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    > but the OSI also rejected the SSPL So did Debian and Red Hat. Do you think AWS leads them both?
chrisoverzero 2y ago
> The BSL doesn't make it closed source […] Yes, that’s right! > But BSL doesn't disqualify software from being open source. No, that’s wrong: https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html > The Business Source License […] is not an Open Source license.
tsimionescu 2y ago
Any license that prevents others from selling your code and eating your lunch is, by definition, not an open source license. One good way of looking at the goals of open source licenses is to force companies to compete on offering services related to the code. Whether this is a sustainable idea is a different question, but this is one of the bedrock ideas about OSS (and FLOSS as well). The other is of course that the rights of those running the software are absolute and trump any rights that the original creators have, except where the users would try to prevent other users from gaining the same rights.
lolinder 2y ago
> The Business Source License (this document, or the “License”) is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License. — The Business Source License https://mariadb.com/bsl11/ https://mariadb.com/bsl11/

by zachmu 2y ago

jen20 2y ago

The BSL is not an OSI-approved license, so it’s certainly not “open source” by the commonly used definition. I agree it’s a reasonable license. But it’s not an open source license.

LtdJorge 2y ago
It even says it is not an open source license right in the license
immibis 2y ago
The OSI is a consortium of cloud platform vendors (really - check for yourself). Of course they'll define open source in a way that excludes licenses that restrict them from turning your work into closed-source cloud platforms. The good news is that we're not beholden to their definition as they have no official status whatsoever. We don't have to believe them just because they put the words Open Source in their company name. The BSL is clearly not open source since it requires approval from the licensor in certain applications, but the OSI also rejected the SSPL, which is just an extended AGPL that requires source code publication in even more cases, and is clearly open source because of that.
- sgarland 2y ago
  I hadn’t considered this angle, stupidly. Now I have to rethink a minor belief system.
- jen20 2y ago
  OSI, and the open source definition they produced, predate the very notion of public cloud by close to a decade. While you don’t have to accept the definition, you are out of step with the industry at large, who broadly use “open source” to refer to things which meet the OSI definition. There’s no need for a competing definition: it’s fine for software to not be open source. As to the specifics of SSPL, I personally don’t see the rationale for accepting AGPL but not SSPL.
  - AntonCTO 2y ago
    At large? As you can see, there is room for a community with a different view on that. My personal definition of an "open source license" is that, as the name implies, I can access the code, preferably without much gatekeeping (e.g., creating a free account in a private GitLab instance). And, to be honest, I prefer the BSL with an Additional Use Grant over any other license, because this is the most reliable option to ensure that the project has a future and won’t be abandoned because no one wants to invest their time for free.
    - immibis 2y ago
      You are welcome to choose that, but in my opinion, it isn't open source. I think open source should means anyone can contribute or take, and contributions are shared, without undue discrimination. Nobody is forced to work on the project, but if they are then they have to give the results of their work back to the common pool they took from. You have just as much power to keep the project going as anyone else does, including the current "maintainer".
      - AntonCTO 2y ago
        > but if they are then they *have to* give the results of their work back to the common pool they took from Well, here we go. Your "open" isn't so open in the end.
        immibis 2y ago
        "open is when you have the right to make it closed"
- yencabulator 2y ago
  > but the OSI also rejected the SSPL So did Debian and Red Hat. Do you think AWS leads them both?

chrisoverzero 2y ago

> The BSL doesn't make it closed source […] Yes, that’s right! > But BSL doesn't disqualify software from being open source. No, that’s wrong: https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html https://spdx.org/licenses/BUSL-1.1.html > The Business Source License […] is not an Open Source license.

tsimionescu 2y ago

Any license that prevents others from selling your code and eating your lunch is, by definition, not an open source license. One good way of looking at the goals of open source licenses is to force companies to compete on offering services related to the code. Whether this is a sustainable idea is a different question, but this is one of the bedrock ideas about OSS (and FLOSS as well). The other is of course that the rights of those running the software are absolute and trump any rights that the original creators have, except where the users would try to prevent other users from gaining the same rights.

lolinder 2y ago

> The Business Source License (this document, or the “License”) is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License. — The Business Source License https://mariadb.com/bsl11/ https://mariadb.com/bsl11/