
Copyleft and community licenses are not without merit, but they are a dead end - pauldix
https://www.influxdata.com/blog/copyleft-and-community-licenses-are-not-without-merit-but-they-are-a-dead-end/
======
antirez
I agree with the overall reasoning of Paul, and we are having the same
conversations inside Redis Labs. For instance the reason why Redis remained
BSD licensed is that, while it's odd that cloud providers are exploiting open
source system software in this way, yet to look just at that does not capture
the whole story. Open source software changed _our world_ completely, so the
real balance must factor in also what happened to IT because open source
exists. Even what now is a problem for OSS producers, the cloud providers, is
in some way a product of the fact that software was democratised in this way
by the OSS movement (and note that without the cloud to productize OSS is
harder). Personally even the fact I write software is because I installed
Linux 23 years ago or alike. So the point is to also have something that is
interesting enough and that can be released in a commercial license and is
complementary to the original project. Because the part that needs to be
commercial, must go totally commercial (it's a long story but AGPL for sure,
and probably also other attempts including SSPL and Common Clause are not just
confusing, they may not be enough). However what this requires is a very good
balance between what's open and what not. In the case of Redis this is a bit a
natural process because I'm very unwelcoming to a lot of things that users
want because I feel they are not a fit. Proof is that for instance, two of my
popular open source projects, that are linenoise and dump1090, are currently
both mostly distributed via forks made by other people. So Redis Labs can just
jump in and do a number of very useful things like graph database, CRDTs, on-
disk support and so forth without any conflict of interests. Let's see what
happens. Right now the trend is to distribute the non-open parts with source
code available and with very few limitations for end users: if this works is
great, and it looks like is the only way because it is very unlikely that
users will have the need of something as a service if they do not use it
already in some form.

DISCLAIMER: This comment was written incrementally and modified several times
adding things that came to mind while writing.

About BSD,MIT,... vs CopyLeft. We can say what we want, but if we just stick
to facts, MIT-alike licenses provide more freedom for the final user. If one
would like to dig more I think that the canonical example would be the Linux
kernel and asking questions about, what if it would be BSD licensed.

~~~
bhickey
> cloud providers are exploiting open source system software

This keeps popping up from database maintainers and unless addressed we're
just going to keep talking past each other.

I'd like to challenge the notion that cloud providers are somehow competing
with the likes of MongoDB, et al. We're at the point where anyone can stand up
a database in a VM with minimal effort. Cloud providers are spending billions
on infrastructure to make sure the bits in that database are highly available
with low latency. This is scarcely distinguishable from what a traditional
colocation service does.

The whole idea of "open source abuse" amounts to special pleading. No one is
forced to use an open source license. MongoDB and its peers have access to
lawyers who can explain the consequences of this or that licensing decision.
Cloud providers offer database deployments under license terms that were
offered to them.

If Redis Labs or MongoDB decided tomorrow to take their database proprietary
there wouldn't be much gnashing of teeth. The projects would fork. The
proprietary forks would see more feature development and we'd all go on with
our lives. You're seeing pushback for a few reasons:

1\. The name "Commons Clause" appears to intentionally invite confusion with
"Creative Commons." Plus the idea that you can jam a rider onto an arbitrary
Open Source license and end up with something coherent is woefully misguided.
The GPL explicitly blows up language like this.

2\. On the heels of the Commons Clause, the SSPL was put up to the OSI as an
open source license even though it obviously violates OSD 5,6 and 9. Along
with Salil's rants on TechCrunch, this makes it look like a transparent
attempt at undermining open source and the OSI.

> In the case of Redis this is a bit a natural process because I'm very
> unwelcoming to a lot of things that users want because I feel they are not a
> fit.

As an aside, I don't send you patches for this reason.

~~~
antt
Creative commons has an NC version. All the video game art I made in my
younger days was NC/SA because the freedom to inspect all software you run
does not mean you get to sell the software to other people.

~~~
crooked-v
What I'd really like for my own use is an NC-for-20-years style license, where
after a given term the work becomes de facto public domain.

~~~
hakfoo
I'd like to see a copyright-donor programme like organ donation-- a standard
"public domain on death" declaration you can bake into your will.

------
dmm
It was interesting reading this person's viewpoints but I think they
misunderstand the point of copyleft licenses.

> They’re forcing a world view that everything should be free and shared like
> some sort of make-believe Star Trek future where money doesn’t exist.

Is a world where you are allowed to repair and modify your own house or car a
"make-believe Star Trek future"? Asking to have insight and control over the
software which plays an increasingly important role in our lives is not a
fantasy to be dismissed.

> Ultimately, in my philosophy, copyleft represents real open source, despite
> what the OSI says. Copyleft is a restriction.

A typo? A restriction for you the creator perhaps, but for your users it
represents the freedom to use, modify, and redistribute the software they use.

~~~
pauldix
Ah, good catch on the typo. I meant the opposite of that, but so many edits
messed it up.

I get the idea that copyleft gives people the freedom to see the code and
modify, but the limitations it imposes for using that code in derivative works
is what makes me think it's a utopian ideal.

~~~
cyphar
> I get the idea that copyleft gives people the freedom to see the code and
> modify, but the limitations it imposes for using that code in derivative
> works is what makes me think it's a utopian ideal.

The problem is you can't get the benefits without the cost. And _all_ of the
derivative works problems are political -- the issue is that companies don't
want to (or can't for various reasons) give you their changes. Personally I
view this as antisocial and shortsighted behaviour (when a company fails, the
work in their fork is lost).

Though to be honest, most proprietary changes aren't very good. The GPL is
just one more (political) hiccup that gives an incentive for companies to
contribute upstream -- in addition to general out-of-tree problems.

------
wwweston
> If software is a process of evolution and continuously building on previous
> work, copyleft licenses represent an evolutionary dead end, while liberal
> licenses represent branches of the tree that can live and progress much
> longer.

This strikes me as not quite right and a bit out of place for an essay that's
otherwise pretty thoughtful. Copyleft is a niche or a branch, not a dead end.

There's a fundamental question facing anyone approaching the economics of a
software project (and the economics of many other kinds of projects too): how
much of the value of the project do you try to control/capture vs how much do
you try to share in an effort to multiply the value? Source licensing
questions are a subset of this: how much of the value of the project lies in
certain levels of control of the source vs the prospect of a community around
the source.

The copyleft licenses are one answer to the question: if the utility value of
software developed by an active community around the source strictly exceeds
the value of any one player controlling access to the source, control the
source to maintain community property of contributions, but let anyone work
out their answer to the value capture question via the utility of the software
or their knowledge about it.

It isn't the only answer and I think it's fair to say that not every useful
piece of software can be developed or maintained on that model, which is why
I'd say it's an adaptation to a niche.

A niche is pretty different than a dead end, though.

This also addresses some odd conceptions of copyleft being incompatible with
improving ones own lot or based in premature adoption of Star Trek values.

~~~
pauldix
Heh, the Star Trek thing might have been a bit of an overreach based on
people's reactions, but let me see if I can restate the point I was trying to
make with that little bit.

Licenses like MIT give the most possible freedom, particularly with how
derivative works are commercialized. Copyleft licenses limit the freedoms of
derivative works by forcing them to be copyleft (although with some hacks and
exceptions). This limitation means that options for creating a derivative
commercial product from copyleft sources are very limited.

If you are able to get around the copyleft restriction (like SaaS products
developed on GPL and AGPL'd software) then you are able to build a commercial
product. But if you want to ship that software to a customer in a licensed
product or a piece of hardware, you won't be able to do it without exposing
your entire source code to be copyleft.

I've heard people argue that copyleft is better because it forces this opening
of source on everyone. It's a utopian ideal that I think limits its utility,
particularly with regard to derivative works.

~~~
yarrel
Licenses like MIT don't give "the most possible freedom". I am not more free
to modify and repair the software running on an iPhone despite the plethora of
BSD and other permissive licenses on it than I am on a laptop running
GNU/Linux under the GPL.

Likewise if you want to commercially exploit some MIT-licensed software that I
have modified and am selling binaries of, you are not more free to
commercially exploit that than you would be under the GPL.

Copyleft doesn't "force" the "opening" of "source" on anyone. It's a pragmatic
measure covering existing software in order to ensure recipients of that
software are free to use it as they wish.

The GPL doesn't limit utility. You are confusing use value and exchange value.
The GPL ensures that software retains its utility for its users.

All that said, if you want to give all your software to users under the MIT or
Apache licenses knock yourself out.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
The LGPL works as you're describing; I can license my own code however I want,
as long as I let people freely modify all the LGPL libraries it links in. The
GPL proper is very deliberately viral.

~~~
robocat
The LGPL is fine for libraries - but that limits where it can be used.

I think the LGPL becomes something just like the GPL for scripting languages
because there is no "linking" for many languages.

For example an npm package for nodejs can't be made into a "library" \- all
the source is "compiled" together at runtime.

~~~
cyphar
If you can replace an LGPL component with a changed version then you don't
need to license any additional code under the LGPL. Shared libraries are just
one mechanism for doing this.

------
gtirloni
I remember a time when people complaining about "open core" licensing were
considered OSS zealots. That includes me.

Now, in light of even more restrictive licensing options being adopted by
prominent companies, "open core" seems awesome!

It feels like we take one step forward and two back. I'll just say, I wish
these companies went full proprietary and stopped capitalizing on community
participation while disdaining it at the same time.

------
Animats
If Linux was MIT-licensed, there would be proprietary "Linux with Oracle
extensions" and "Linux with Microsoft extensions". They'd cost money, wouldn't
operate without the the closed source parts, and would be incompatible.

Engulf, extend, devour.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Oh no, it would've been worse from the fact that Microsoft and Oracle used BSD
code in their proprietary OS's whose code they certainly didn't share. Plus,
all the money they made let them fight against software freedoms with
monopolistic schemes, lobbying, and lawsuits. It's much worse than just an
open product with extensions.

~~~
speedplane
This already exists... Android is MIT licensed and nearly every cell phone
vendor has incompatible proprietary extensions.

~~~
nickpsecurity
It's Apache 2.0 and it did lead to incompatible, proprietary extensions:

[https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses](https://source.android.com/setup/start/licenses)

------
heyjudy
The challenges are:

0\. Megacorps exploiting FOSS and not volunteering enough (a) money or (b)
code back overall.

1\. The limitations brought on everyone who's not a megacorp by authors trying
to acheive 0a &| 0b.

As such, there are some difficult &| uncool ways around this:

i. A name-and-shame web app that everyone know about that impacts a company's
sales and reputation if it cheats FOSS.

ii. Going micropayment commercial with intrusive license auditing to verify
compliance.

iii. Begging harder from big companies that are known to abuse FOSS.

PS: Before OSS was popular, shareware/freeware with code hidden like it was
some sort of arcane secret magic much as scientists did before the modern era.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
But (0) is a completely neutral thing for most members of a FOSS community.
Amazon starting up a new service won't stop me from merging code or change my
(generally zero) income. It only hurts you if you're another company who also
wants to exploit the software for profit.

------
ajross
> Ok, let’s get into licensing. Copyleft licenses like AGPL and SSPL have a
> weaker result in terms of overall benefit to society than liberal licenses
> like MIT and Apache2. [...] They’re forcing a world view that everything
> should be free and shared like some sort of make-believe Star Trek future
> where money doesn’t exist.

That's FUD right out of 1998. Sigh.

Look, any attack on copyleft needs to start from a position of describing how
any of the open source revolution of the last two decades happens without it.
I mean, basically everything was driven by GPL software.

Instead, this starts from a position of poop flinging by calling GPL
proponents naive communists. I don't see that it gets any better. Skip.

------
stcredzero
_Ok, let’s get into licensing. Copyleft licenses like AGPL and SSPL have a
weaker result in terms of overall benefit to society than liberal licenses
like MIT and Apache2. You can take two interpretations on copyleft, which I’ll
call “the crusader” or “the capitalist”._

The problem with the "crusader" model, as practiced, is that it came with a
"you're either with us, or you're against us" stance. This created a community
subculture which encouraged the alienation of potential allies and served more
to make the Free Software movement more of a hipster pose. It served more to
make Free Software a kind of antipodean "unwalled" garden, where the barriers
to entry also acted as a validation of the virtue signal.

Don't get me wrong. Copyleft licenses have a place. It's just that the place
is not "Uber alles."

~~~
Proven
Personally I make an effort to not contribute to any freedom-limiting software
(GPL 2.0 is already bad enough, but GPL 3 is way worse). I explicitly check
for GPL 3 and make sure I don't help in any way.

The alienation created by the crusader model is deliberate. It's meant to
control and change, not to live and let live.

------
xvilka
I think it won't help them in the long run - people and companies will just
switch to another software with friendlier license (or a new software will
emerge).

------
claudiawerner
>People are motivated not only by a sense of purpose and the desire to
contribute to something greater, but also by improving their lot in life and
that of their families and heirs (read: capitalism). Copyleft ignores the
latter while assuming the former will make everything ok.

This is a bit of a tricky sentence, because it's clear that capitalism isn't
simply the motivation to improve your lot in life, since this was around since
before capitalism. The idea that "copyleft" ignores the desire to improve
one's lot in life is silly. Much more often (though not even necessarily) it's
individuals themselves who would rather give something to the world (and make
sure it keeps giving to the world if it's something good) - and they choose a
license accordingly. It's also strange to me that while it's less likely the
most ardent capitalist supports the GPL or copyleft licenses, Richard Stallman
is something of a little-L libertarian himself. In fact, he views software
freedom as an important freedom like freedom of speech is, to be counted among
the liberal ideas that the bourgeois (capitalist) revolution ushered in.
Copyleft-as-freedom (in the sense that a freedom cannot be exercised to remove
the freedom of others) is spiritually just as much of a 'capitalist' ideal as
permissive licensing is, and the distinction can't be reduced down to the more
modern dichotomy of positive and negative liberties, since even in terms of
software, the content of the freedom can be framed in terms of either.

>The community licenses fall in exactly the same boat. They’re open, free to
use and contribute to, as long as you follow the set of rules and
restrictions. Whether they are open source is a boring semantic argument. If
you claim they are not, then copyleft licenses aren’t either, unless you’re
actually a crusader. If that’s you, I recommend having some whiskey ready for
when the cruel realities of life come crashing down.

This is my main disagreement with the author. By brushing aside discussion of
whether something is 'open source' as a mere semantic argument, he's of the
idea that the principle can be abstracted away from the software. But in the
case of open source software, I'm an essentialist; open source software is
essentially open source, and in this Platonic sense is how I understand open
source to be, just as an idealist might understand pears, apples and oranges
to be part of something supersensibly real - fruit, not merely a mental idea.

The issue that people (like me) take with "community licenses" isn't that they
have restrictions, it's that the restrictions are fundamentally at odds with
what open source (or "free" or whatever other term you'd like to use for the
essence of this software which would be well represented by a random aliquot
of Github to be representative of the class). The author has tricked us -
"open, free to use and contribute to" misses out a massive component of what
we consider free software (including copyleft licenses) to be.

To me (YMMV) free software contains the hope for a better world, one which may
be incompatible with this one. The talk of monetization and creating a
'business' around it has come about very naturally in the trend of
commodification. Many people are (justifiably) upset because open source like
houses or art now faces an internal contradiction between use-value and
exchange-value, and it must do, in order to survive in a world dominated by
capital, in which between 8 to 12 hours of our days are shifted towards those
activities which produce exchange value away from those that don't.

------
guelo
GPL was a mostly failed, idealistic attempt at creating a separate non-
commercial hobbyist computing ecosystem. It's not a big surprise that
corporate developers don't like non-commercial software that they're not
allowed to use.

~~~
indymike
Calling GPL a failure or non-commercial is to ignore the role of GPL software
in the ISP, Hosting and cloud computing industries. For those of us writing
commercial software, as the article points out, the GPL makes it very hard to
create a license revenue driven business. Selling licenses is not the only
model, but it is a proven one.

