I'm totally supportive of developers and their rights to release software under whatever license they feel appropriate, but if you release open source software, benefit from your software being open source, for probably years, and then someone else monetizes it... I'd argue you really ought to have seen that coming from the get-go. The license explicitly allowed it, it's not a loop hole that nobody knew about, it's absolutely intentional.
If people want to move over to shared source licenses like SSPL, or heck, even just close the source... that's fine too. But please don't try to call it open source or defending open source. It's defending a profit model that stopped working. Totally reasonable thing to do, but it's nothing to do with open source being corrupted.
You used the phrase 'open source' 9 times in your three paragraphs, but didn't mention 'free' or 'freedom'. (Hmm, the F in FOSS may count as one veiled instance.)
Talking in terms of freedom for people to use free software however they want makes more sense than trying to dance through the forest of varyingly-free 'open source' licences.
I think we have to separate definitions from strategy/goals: the OSI open source definition and he FSF Free Software definition—the latter of which seems to be what RMS views Free Software as entailing—a remarkably similar. The difference seems to be that RMS and the FSF view preventing non-Free software as an important goal, and this prefer licenses which tend to have the effects of preventing downstream non-Free derivatives and encouraging people to relicense other software under them, whileany others in the FOSS universe prefer promoting FOSS creation and use to preventing non-FOSS software..
But I think he described it very well. Open Source, I am opening it and I don't care about Your Freedom, nor my Freedom or anyone's Freedom. And you should not judge me whether I care about it being Free or Not.
This is the crux.
No two people agree on what this actually means, and it sidesteps any discussion of freedoms.
We now have a cottage industry of people who harvest the fruits and sell them so end users don't have to pick them themselves and also others who use the free fruits to manufacture and sell milkshakes at higher margins than if they would have to grow their own fruits or buy them.
The relationship with end users and ideology is broken as is the pipeline of new contributors as end users do not anymore see the value and ideas that drove the initial plantations as they deal with fruit pickers and milkshake makers.
At this point open source loses its reason to exist and the people still planting and offering fruits for free will inevitably question what they are doing if they are only enabling third party businesses, but inertia means they will continue as that's their life work. But there is unlikely to be a second generation after them so that's the end of the movement. The story here is the commercial interests have cut the branch on which they and everyone else sit. For them it doesn't matter its just money not ideology and they will find ways to profit but the loss is to end users. So for open source to be meaningful its has to think carefully about how it will interact with commercial interests as mix and match will kill it in a generation.
Another thing to consider is the aspect of tree tending. If you are a professional tree planter who has worked at a tree plantation with a big wall around it, once you left, you won't be able to point at the tree any more and say "look, I planted it". E.g. when trying to get hired at another tree plantation. The only thing left of your own creation would be the diminishing memories you had of the tree growing, having its first leaves, first real bark, etc. Maybe your company won't like your tree for some reason and burn it. If it's outside, it can't be logged. If the company pays you to tend the tree, if they fire you you will still be able to tend it at a different company. Red Hat or Sun can be bought but the trees were outside of the walls, so the damages to the community were comparatively minor.
Linux is the canonical example. It gets contributions from everyone. Why? Well, I'm no expert, but it looks like it's because everyone wants to benefit from the latest changes, and the easiest way to do that is if everyone commits. Diverging forks are expensive, and get less peer review.
Open Source is a weird beast inside capitalism; it's this common ground between a bunch of varied corporations and a pool of random users. The fact that this amazing piece of infrastructure is just available and constantly maintained by its own users is more amazing than any rant about software freedom I've ever read.
Best of luck to all the FOSS developers trying to put food on the table through their open source work, I really do wish them the best, but let's at least be fair; traditional open source projects are doing great. Better than ever, imo. Whether it's desktop apps like Krita and Blender, infrastructure like the Linux kernel, web frameworks, programming languages, virtual machines...
This aside, I also definitely hope nobody feels offended by these opinions, open source means different things to different people. Regardless of what it means, I'm hoping the best for the future of open source, and I remain strongly optimistic.
That is completely wrong, even for Linus, but especially to the ones that came before who called it free software. They did care what happened to it. They wanted it to stay free such that it continues to benefit society and enables people to do computing freely.
There have been a number of changes to Amazon's policies over the years, and personal participation ("outside activity") is really straightforward now. For the vast majority of cases you just need to submit a ticket with details, and then it is auto-approved.
For comparison, you can have a look at Google's open source policy on personal projects here: https://opensource.google.com/docs/iarc/
If you are an employee and have questions, drop me a line at msw at amazon.com
So the prospects of Amazon reimplement all the popular open-source software someday is viable?
Amazon's policy on outside activity is very reasonable.
But honestly, whether the companies are 'right' or not isn't my point, and I hope it's not what people take away from my ranting. I only wanted to make a point about the narratives around FOSS being destroyed. People chose to build businesses on open source; sometimes it worked, sometimes it didn't. That's all we're learning.
Contrary to reports of its death, open source is alive and well.
Gotta learn to spot the fakes.
I think a _lot_ of people say "No" to that question. Are Redis/Mongo et al "Free Open Source Software"? I tend to think not. I'm completely behind their right to change the license freedoms they choose to grant.
But at least in my opinion, it's no longer "free open source software".
It's quite clearly not rms's definition of free software. It's less free than the EFF's definition of gpl (in any of its versions). It's almost certainly not what ESR means by "Open Source".
I don't know who gets to say what is and isn't "FOSS", but I'd suggest all three of those have at the very least "prior art" ownership of the definition, and the Mongo/Redis clearly do not have any standing to define that term...
That should be FSF.
(I won't stealth edit it to make it looked like I didn't fuck up tho...)