Open-core concerns

[anon59363363]

Disclaimer
1. I’d like to insert a brief comment that might highlight my point of view on open source development that might be of interest to this discussion. I think to help as many people here as possible about what open source is.
2. As I said before, my goal is to answer possible questions related to open source and not to start a personal attack. Given that, by: community, society, humanity, philosophy, conduct, norm: we must help each other and respect ideas that we do not agree.
3. I think this thread is very interesting, and has a lot of good and bad arguments about what open source is.
4. This text is going to be big, so I hope you all have the patience to read it and possibly point out criticisms, general problems later.
5. I don’t want to be right or wrong about any point of view, but always doubt so that it’s possible to think about different things.
6. I hope I helped, if I didn’t, I apologize.
7. I’m going to use the concept of “counter-argument” to enhance the discussion about software and community concerns.
8. I will be direct, frank and sincere in my views. Please do not think that my being direct, frank and sincere with you is the same as thinking that I am rude or disrespectful. I’m just pointing out criticism, general comments.
9. I am not a lawyer, law student, prosecutor or judge. If in doubt, consult your lawyer (I am not providing any legal advice).

Hey everyone again.

@wolftune

That is true for some licenses. Copyleft licenses like GNU GPL and MPL are also Open Source. They do not allow the creation of non-free versions.

It’s not so true, GPLv2 is incompatible with the GPLv3 license. GPLv2 allows a process called “tivozation”, which includes proprietary code. That’s why they say that Linux is not open, even using code licensed under GPLv2. For example, GPLv2 and GPLv3 are licensed as Copyleft, but there is no guarantee that everyone will have to contribute if the use is private or multi-licensed. Also, “open source” does not mean “open contribution”, “open use or fair use”, “open distribution”.

What I mean here is: “The big general problem with software is its use and distribution. These problems were never resolved. There are some academics who argue that the style of licenses created is unfair, because the reality of the software is shareware. As the software is public, there is no way to guarantee that you have the same resources as n people. Because each person can modify the software for private use. Which means you will have different features to anyone else. What makes “open source” is not a “certification” but a company, government, individual or community that maintains it.” Hence the importance of choosing a license and a community that maintains this.

That’s why I don’t understand the concern with marketing and advertising because it’s outside the software. And generally the problems you cite are not with marketing or advertising, but with the use and distribution of the software. Which in fact was never resolved. What is currently happening is companies using the cloud to manage software under the same license and avoid distribution or incorrect use.

But once the software is opened, this is also irrelevant, because someone can use it in any other way. Another thing I wanted to talk about is that once you use the cloud, this is bad from an environmental point of view, because a lot of computer processing harms the environment. In other words, there is no such thing as “100% open” or “free code”. I’m not arguing against the Open Source Definition, GNU etc. But by the dictionary definition, open is not something trapped or closed. It is something that has no definition.

To what extent do we consider something open: “license software”, “code of conduct”, “tos(term of service)”, “business model”?

---

@wolftune

That is not specifically the same as open-core because in some cases of multi-licensing, the project puts 100% of their code out as open source and the alternate license is only to allow others to use it in (differently named almost always) derivative projects that are closed.

“Multi-licensing”, “open core”, “financial donations” are types of business models. I cited multilicensing as an example, not an argument. As I mentioned earlier, each business model depends on the company, community, nonprofit, government, or developer. It is never a decision of the user, client, individual. We can discuss alternative models to open core here. What do you think?

---

@wolftune

With open core, the main project itself under its own name (usually) makes a product which uses a mix of open and closed terms.

As I said earlier, this is not always true. There may be projects that are 100% open, but with an outdated license, as is the case with the linux kernel, which has proprietary drivers.

---

@wolftune

YES! You are understanding. I have concerns that Baserow does not prioritize. Otherwise, if they had my exact values, they would not make any of the code closed. And this is a topic where I objected to them saying without qualification that Baserow is open source. And they responded by at least adjusting their marketing to be more fair, good for them. They responded because they recognize my concerns as among those that people have, and they don’t want to be criticized for dishonest marketing. I don’t know how many people in Baserow community or company understand or care about the issues. Maybe some of them see the proprietary code as an unfortunate but practical compromise. Maybe they think it doesn’t matter. They do seem to have good-will toward the community and the wider society.

Now that you understand my point, I would like to argue that your alternative when a company does not change the “license software” is for you to change software. For example, if you want something “libre/floss/free” you could use NocoDb, instead of Baserow which is MIT licensed and open core. Another option is to fork Baserow and launch it under your own license if you want.

Another option to solve this problem is for you to suggest changes to the license if everyone supports your idea here. But I, for example, am against this, as it violates the principle that software distribution must be maintained under the original license.

@wolftune

So, indeed, I am not here to represent Baserow’s business values, I am here presenting my values and concerns which happen to be shared by a large portion of people in the Open Source movement (but by a smaller portion of developers-who-sometimes-work-with-open-source).

I really understand your point of view now, but like I said your options are: 1) “leave the Baserow community because it doesn’t represent your values or ideas”, 2) “create an open project with your values and ideas”, 3) “use an open project licensed with the license you think is great”, 4) "suggest real changes in the company’s culture, such as changing the license or some terms of service. But don’t change the “label” (what do I suggest as an alternative to saying “100% open”), 5) Another suggestion of mine that I think you should consider would be “multi-licensing” as an alternative to opencore, 6) What I said at the beginning is that I do not represent the Baserow company and not the community. What I said is that based on the MIT license within Baserow, your concern doesn’t make sense. In that sense, I said not to have too many expectations with open source, because you could be disappointed. Because each company or community deals with its software in a different way.

I didn’t say that your concerns were wrong, I just said that the focus of your concerns is not directed at the main issues of the software. Your concerns are clearly changing the Baserow license, or using multi-licensing. Regarding such concerns, I said that it is possible to think about this with greater participation from anyone in the community here. I just said, however, that changing the Baserow license or changing the business model still doesn’t solve general problems that people may have.

@wolftune

There was a time when “organic” was not legally recognized, and there was a time before even truth-in-advertising laws. The distinction about legality is something I acknowledged. You haven’t told me anything I didn’t already know. I would support a law regulating the use of “open source”. Under such a law, Baserow could say that their open source repo is open source, and they could say that most of Baserow is open source, but they couldn’t just say “Baserow is open source” because they use the name “Baserow” to refer to a product that includes proprietary software. You might not support a law. I am not arguing that it is or isn’t in Baserow’s business interest to have such a law. And you’d be missing the point if you were to emphasize that such a law does not now exist.

I suggest several interesting things, please see this: Add software license information within the Baserow plans page . I tried to help in many ways. I asked if they should change the license to GPL, AGPL. As well, I asked about Baserow’s terms of service are good or bad.

@wolftune

In practice, the social norm of deference to the Open Source Definition is the farthest we have in terms of regulation of the term, so I can appeal to it only on that social norm. Thankfully, Baserow folks respected that and heard my concerns. So, there wasn’t anything added to the discussion to try to break apart my points which never had anything wrong in them. They do include some opinions, and you don’t need to agree with them.

Maybe “your concerns are changing the Baserow license or using multi-licensing etc”. Regarding such concerns, I said that it is possible to think about this with greater participation from anyone in the community here. But I just said, however, that changing the Baserow license or changing the business model still doesn’t solve general problems that people may have: such as private use, commercial use and software distribution.

I have said at various times that your concern is similar to mine, although we have a different focus. I, for example, believe that we should not be restricted by software, because what is restricted is within the software license.

Furthermore, I argued that any marketing problem is the responsibility of the person responsible for marketing, and that if that person had done something in bad faith and was proven to have done so within the company, any company should have removed or fired him. Just as you expect when driving a car, there is “driving knowledge” as well as a “driver’s license” or “car”. The software license does not grant you “open source knowledge” or a “server”. So you depend on who sells the software and who maintains it. So, soon the process of independence occurs when you have the knowledge and money to keep a server working your way. Also, external concerns do not make sense according to a minimalist, commercial or even epicurean vision. Or a Buddhist view, where suffering is part of life, but choosing to suffer is optional.

I also said that justice is not one-sided. Just like, saying that a company is bad, there must be some proof of this, otherwise it is a false allegation. I also said that in many cases open source terminology is not relevant.

It also said that any open source license does not allow proprietary things, which is false. There are licenses that allow such as GPLv2, MIT, Apache, LGPL etc. And even the GPLv3, AGPL licenses are not restrictive when any person in bad faith uses them privately. Or when people take private courses with private technology to teach open software.

Or when people use something openly, but don’t contribute or help financially. Or when people in the community themselves have toxic attitudes when they don’t listen to the opposing argument or consider it irrelevant.