Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm amazed how many people don't like open-source... Imagine the hellscape computers / the internet would be today if Linux was 'Source available'.




Some source available licenses are literally just modified open source with the addition of some clauses (mostly cloud related)

To me source available is: we are open source but if you are an cloud provider with billions of dollars, ask us for a license/fund us.

Technically linux gets funded enough and rightfully so but I remember how netbsd's fundings were so meagre and low which really saddened me.

To be honest, I thought about it and lets assume Linux uses a busl like license which open sources after 4 years

Most likely what would've happened is that someone will take that 4 year old code and then fork it to create the linux we all kinda love.

But overall I think linux is the bedrock of any vps/cloud provider which can be small enough too to be unable to buy their source available license so its kind of an mixed bag I guess and for linux, not worth it because it already gets a lot of funding.

It would be interesting if the same funding that linux kernel gets was shared at a similar level to the distros because I saw cachyos and talked to its creator on discord and I am not kidding but the fundings are very small for a project so big.

Also I think most people use source available license to make money or funding, basically the question which I want to ask you is: how to make enough money in open source?


For a lot of developers, the current biggest failure of open source is the AWS/Azure/GCP problem. BigCloud has a tendency to just take well liked open source products, provide a hosted version of them and as a result they absolutely annihilate the market share of the entity that originally made the product (which usually made money by offering supported and hosted versions of the software). Effectively, for networked software (which is the overwhelming majority of software products these days) you might as well use something like BSD/MIT rather than any of the GPLs[0] because they practically have the same guarantees; it's just that the BSD/MIT licenses don't contain language that makes you think it does stuff it actually doesn't do. Non-networked software like kernels, drivers and most desktop software don't have this issue, so it doesn't apply.

Open source for that sort of product (which most of the big switches away from open source have been about) only further entrenches BigCloud's dominance over the ecosystem. It absolutely breaks the notion that you can run a profitable business on open source. BigCloud basically always wins that race even if they aren't cheaper because the company is using BigCloud already, so using their hosted version means cutting less yellow tape internally since the difficulty of getting people to agree on BigCloud is much lower compared to adding a new third party you have to work with.

The general response to this issue from the open source side tends to just be to accuse the original developers of being greedy/only wanting to use the ecosystem to springboard their own popularity.

---

I should also note that this generally doesn't apply to the fight between DHH and Mullenweg that's described in the OP. DHH just wants to kick a hornets nest and get attention now that Omarchy isn't the topic du jour anymore - no BigCloud (or for this case, shared hosting provider is probably more likely) is going to copy a random kanban tool written in Ruby on Rails. They're copying the actual high profile stuff like Redis, Terraform and whatever other examples you can recently think of that got screwed by BigClouds offering their services in that way (shared providers pretty much universally still use the classic AMP stack, which doesn't support a Ruby project, immunizing DHHs tool from that particular issue as well). Mullenweg by contrast does have to deal with Automattic not having a stranglehold on being a WordPress provider since the terms of his license weren't his to make to begin with; b3/cafelog was also under GPL and WordPress inherited that. He's been burned by FOSS, but it's also hard to say he was surprised by it, since WP is modified from another software product.

[0]: Including the AGPL, it doesn't actually do what you think it does.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: