Hi guys.
Disclaimer
1. I don’t come here to talk about personal attacks, but I’m talking about counter-arguments, different arguments for anyone to analyze and substantiate their opinion.
2. I would like to contribute to this topic with various academic, theoretical references and through arguments, conclusions and true statements in the “logical and scientific sense”.
3. My goal here as a user is to “defend Baserow” (I mean the company, community and the tool. My arguments can be useful for the community or not), because some users can make the mistake of misunderstanding certain things from the point of view of what is “libre” and what is “open”, how much of what is “open movement”, “”.
4. I can be wrong in some arguments or not.
5. I’m going to consider 8 peculiar facts that always appear in vogue in a discussion of what is “open or open source or floss or libre etc”.
6. I’m going to talk about these points from my experience in the development of open solutions and also some things I’ve learned throughout my life, and other complementary information. And how does this accord with open core. The statements, arguments here must not endorse any position of the Baserow company or the Baserow users.
7. I would like to know all the weaknesses or strengths that this text can show. I hope to have contributed in this post the greater clarification of the subjects.
8. This text should not be seen as a scientific article, I would like someone to raise any criticism related to all this.
9. I would like us to follow the community conduct manual for greater technical and inclusive discussion.
Initial considerations:
I think what you said makes sense, but it also confuses your own definitions. For example, there are many business models in the open source world, open core is just one of many types of open business model. Any open source license allows you to license any part of the code you want. For example, if you license software under GPL or MIT, you can have proprietary license versions if you want. In that sense, I don’t think that open core is wrong, if open source licenses allow multi-licensing, open core etc.
But the definition you bring of open core makes no sense, as this is contrary to the definition of open core in the theoretical sense of the word. In that definition, I couldn’t say that linux is open core. But in this case, linux(kernel) is open core (libre/floss). For example, open core is not about including proprietary parts, although it may have something like that. "There is a difference between saying that every open core ( business model) includes proprietary code and saying that not every open core ( business model) can includes proprietary code. "
Open core is just a business model, nothing more or less. For example, open core is to adopt an open version (GPL, MIT etc) with a paid version (GPL, MIT etc). Let’s do a simple example, let’s say you want to receive money from your user and be compatible with GPL v3. You can receive money through financial donations, and some users may not pay. In this case, you would have here open core, a paid version and a non-paid version. So, what separates what is fair or unfair is how this business model is adopted. No license defines or restricts how to make money or how to market a product, because it always depends only on the developer or team or company, not the user. So, users’ concern is meaningless. Just like this definition you bring doesn’t make much sense.
What I mean here is that open core has nothing to do with whether or not to include proprietary things, it has to do with including specific open licenses for use. And your text starts talking about something confusing and not very verifiable, so I don’t agree with your argument.
I agree with some of the points you’ve said here, but I would like to raise another point.
For example, many people confuse open source, closed source with proprietary source. But any server hosting software by architectural definition is closed source, this is not the same as proprietary code. But another problem with your argument is that it does not take this into account: “people’s limited understanding or my limited understanding is always possible, there’s no avoiding it”. The point is that changing the terminology is not going to solve people’s general problem with understanding what software or a business model is. And another problem with your argument here is that it doesn’t take this into account: “open core” and “license”, they are different and distinct things, as I will talk about before.
Another problem I see with your argument is the following: I am not a judge, lawyer, prosecutor or law student. But if any user feels that the Baserow (the tool, community or company) is not complying with the terms of the license, that user may feel that the company should be legally sued. This is what happens in some cases of communities, which sued many companies for not following the licenses, as it violates the consumer code. As a user, I can be wrong in my statements, as well as many who do not understand such matters and statements. This shouldn’t be a criticism of anyone, but a fact if something is thought in a way that is not within the area of knowledge of most people here. I do not feel that Baserow (company, community, tool) are wrong in the legal sense of the word, or are wrong in the consumer law sense. Because I don’t feel the MIT license is wrong, because MIT is open source. Everything is in line with what is expected and promised here, the 4 freedoms are guaranteed: modify, distribute, share, study.
Another problem I see with your argument is the following: In theory I would need to prove such facts, if the Baserow labels are acceptable and not malicious. Then, what is not proven, it is assumed that it is not true. And since I have no way of proving it, I assume in this topic that this concern is not relevant or true.
Then, an concern I have is that we should be careful about labeling things. A bigger problem would be for me, if there is such a radical change in the code base, considering that all my codes here are in the same MIT license (which is the base of Baserow).
I partially agree with what you said, but not completely. Because, I believe that companies should be responsible, but not fully responsible for everything. That is, certain responsibilities belong to the users, and other responsibilities belong to the company. If users do not seek to read books, scientific articles etc. I don’t think the lack of knowledge of the license or business model is entirely the responsibility of the company. And because, “I don’t think honesty is done through words, text but actions”.
For example, from the moment you log in to any company, be aware of what is proposed and analyzed. It makes no sense, for example, to question a license change or “specify that things are more understandable”, “if you yourself have a certain difficulty understanding certain things, this is not an Ad hominem argument”, if you have agreed with a license or business model by yourself.
In that case, I also don’t understand why there is a concern with the open core business model, if people have previously agreed to the an “business term” when creating an account in Baserow. If you(anyone reading this here or I), as a user, do not agree with the business model: open core or the license made available, you should look for alternatives. And not in my view, forcing things to be your way. I talk about this because the open community often attracts malicious or toxic users that avoid development progress. My point here is that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
The fact that I say there are malicious or toxic users is not an opinion, it’s a fact. You can find this in any issues, reports in GitHub, GitLab, Blogger etc. To make this very understandable, I am not saying that you are toxic or malicious, but that in any open community or place there are people like that. And that this often starts with labeling what is right and wrong, which impedes developmental progress. In addition to harming the company, although they do not intentionally do so.
The license ( MIT, GPL etc ) or business model ( open core, bug-bounty etc ) is only a “formality”, and it “only makes sense in the economic or legal environment between communities, companies and government”. But this is never applicable to the user, I’ve never seen a case where a user was sued for not contributing to GPL, MIT etc. I don’t think we should say that the open core is a real problem for users, when it’s usually only a problem for governments, companies and communities.
I kindly ask you all not to think that just because I said this: “that I don’t know of any user cases that have been prosecuted for not contributing source code” is the same as assuming, affirming, saying, concluding that: ‘doesn’t there are cases of users being sued for not contributing to the source code’. I am not saying that my lack of knowledge necessitates the absence of evidence.
Another important thing to say is that nobody is obliged to offer free or paid support, each company or developer or team has some freedom to design their business model. Another important thing to say is that nothing prevents you from downloading the source code and using it the way you want to use it. In theory, as you have a common base (a open core) you can develop your way, trusting the community or not. In this sense, I agree with your initial position, but not completely as I said earlier.
What I mean: I don’t think such considerations can solve general problems that people may have when using Baserow on their own. If likewise, you argue that companies can misuse open source. I think that users or developers can also misuse open source. The difference in our vision is that I accept that not everything is perfect and that’s why I think MIT is more viable.
I don’t agree with your argument here, and I’ll see how I can argue otherwise. I believe that the current big problem in software development is wanting to please everyone or using labels saying what is right or wrong. In the same way that some users may have difficulty in knowing the difference between libre and what is open, imagine that users would also have difficulty working together if they do not have the same ideas of working as a team.
Another problem is always the conflict we have with the opposing ideas we believe in software development. Licenses like MIT and models like open core manage to solve such conceptual problems, saying that each person contributes the way they want. For example, by law “it is the right of each copyright holder to decide whether their code should be published”, by having restrictive licenses this is complicated, with MIT this is not complicated. One of the advantages of open core and MIT is that it allows each person to receive a proportional right to what they develop.
If there are companies with bad behavior, this shouldn’t be a problem for the Baserow company and Baserow users. It’s a separate problem, outside the circle. That is, there are problems that are beyond our control and reach.
What I said is: while I agree with you all that we should be transparent, transparency by itself is not an easy absolute value to have or build. There are several problems along the way. For example, although there are ways of being more or less transparent, there is no absolute, real, concrete way of doing so. The problem with having general and specific transparency is that it limits the privacy and freedom of users.
Several projects I participated in were closed, because usually “user-developers”, “developers”, “user-non-developers”, “non-developers” or “users” requested things that were impossible to be done, or requested things without help or collaborate in a positive way. Or they had increasingly rigid and closed positions. I would really like Baserow not to turn into a closed company because of “societal pressure with open and sustainable development”
Even if you change the open source license, even if you change the business model, the “server remains closed”, outside your range. And this is not a surprise, because from a security point of view, when we want to have more security, we have less privacy or anonymity. And even if someone changes open core (business model) to any alternative business model, as is the case with BugBounty, financial donations etc. The fact is that you “cannot audit the Baserow server”, because by definition of web architecture, that “server is outside the network that you have access to”. Even if we “didn’t have servers”, “we’d still have things running that can’t be audited”.
Making software available under an open license and saying that it provides security, or that we should use the x,y, z license makes no sense. The license only makes sense for companies that sell software. In this case, this shouldn’t be a concern for Baserow users or non Baserow users.
There is difference between “open movement”, “business model” and “open source license”. The “open source license” says about how the software can, must, will be used. An “open source movement” is not license related but the characteristics of how we work in the labor market. For example, we can use any proprietary thing on the “desktop” on some personal computer for work. This is not the same as using software licensed under the MIT, GPL etc. As I want to exemplify here: it’s one thing to license the software, it’s another thing to use only open source software. Another different thing is having freedom to develop software. And another different thing is to market the software.
Also, a lot of people say things without reading and without researching. So the open core examples are not the same as most people talk about. Many times people are saying that open core is free-premium, but they are different things. It’s like comparing a bicycle to a car. From the consumer’s point of view, both the bicycle and the car are vehicles to take you anywhere, what changes in both is the purpose for which you use them.
My example here is not to equate things, but to exemplify that most code discussions are done this way. The fact that I exemplify this is opening up the discussion to the things that matter. For example, the discussion between open source code x closed source code x proprietary source code are different things. Baserow is open source code and is licensed for specific use. Having a specific use license is not the same as having a closed, restricted, or proprietary license. And nothing prevents the license from changing in the near future. In this case, the discussions do not make sense from the logical point of view of argument, because we are not discussing license alternatives, and also because such discussion is not about that specifically.
The fact that I talk about the open movement and open source licensing is because most people, when they talk about software, they’re talking about something other than software. It’s the x, y problem. For example, “the XY problem occurs when someone asks for help based on their attempted solution, rather than their underlying problem. They have a pretty good understanding of their problem (X), and believe this can be solved by doing Y. So they ask for help with Y”
People talk about open core problems as if these problems should reflect greater control by the company. It is the same as arguing that the world’s general problem is “capitalism”, “lack of love” etc. The problem with this is that we are not thinking of alternatives to real problems, only problems without foundation. For example, Baserow shouldn’t be blamed for another company using the wrong business model. The most interesting discussion would be, what alternative do we have in opposition to open core?
Initially, to make things more interesting I think it’s interesting to read 13 texts to talk about open core, open movement etc. I say this because the basis of my idea is in these texts: Why the MIT licensed is much more used than GPL-3?, The Three F’s of Open Source Development, Open core model vs Open core-software, What Baserow architecture was created and why?, GPL is evil, Multi-licensing, Why Software Should Be Free, License Inclusion Principles, ‘Open source’ is not ‘free software’, The Great Open Source Divide: ICE, Hippocratic License and the Controversy, Open source has a people problem | InfoWorld, The Open Source Definition, Categories of Free and Nonfree Software The Death of “Free” Software . . . or How Google Killed GPL
But I don’t think any user will do this kind of research, because usually end users want a product and don’t talk about a product. It’s not that the discussion about what is more right or wrong isn’t interesting, it’s that for the user, like me, I don’t take this type of discussion so seriously. For example, talking about technical details usually makes sense to technical people, the user will not always understand or want to do this.
But I agree in part, but just because you don’t know the law doesn’t make you exempt from being responsible for the law.
This definition is not used in business models, only for software licenses. You talk about Baserow’s business problem, but then you say it’s a license problem. Which problem do you consider important: the software license or the business model that the software is in?
This is what some call the “argumentative fallacy of analogy or comparison”. The point of fallacy or error begins when we compare equivalent things that are not equivalent. It is the same as saying that a bicycle is a car, yes a bicycle is a type of vehicle like a car, but the comparison must stop here.
The point is, “people keep saying that bicycle are cars”. I don’t think in this sense that users have the time and concern to define labels, use labels or differentiate types of labels. For me, the problem with labels is their use, context and not everyone does it right. Just as there is a concern about labels as you argue, my concern is that this is not relevant and even if it is relevant it doesn’t make sense.
There are several books and authors that talk about the problem of “impossibility of knowledge, choice”. That is,problems about some general conduct of the xyz company, in my opinion, should not reflect on Baserow. In these cases, Baserow may send an official post to say that it is against such action by one company or another. Only if this is really necessary and if there is some social pressure from its users, otherwise, no company should be required by law to take a stand against another company.
From a user point of view, I’m less concerned about having my server. Therefore, I believe that open core is a good business model, it may not be for most people, but for me it makes sense, as a user. I’d like to conclude by saying here, I’m happy with Baserow being the way it is. Even because it is not possible to please everyone, and who does, does not please anyone. I must also say that there is no such thing as a free lunch, even 100% open source running with financial donations doesn’t outperform source code with some support payment and expert staff in terms of recurring updates.
And that even if they change the terminology, it might not make sense to end users. I do not believe that there are solutions to all the world’s problems, but that there are specific solutions that we must study if we wish to help. For me, it would make sense to say, that Baserow includes MIT license etc within the specific plan (example, free is MIT, premium is GPL).
“Usually some people who only like open source want to impose their will on the desktop.” Which I consider to be a mistake, because according to any open source license you shouldn’t be restricted to just open source software. Also, this imposition also makes no sense legally speaking, since everyone is free by law to use anything they want, unless that thing violates a specific law. Also, no open source license prevents people from using proprietary stuff. The fact that people want to install or only use proprietary things must be their will, although you may not agree. Otherwise, you are not being open in the sense of freedom.