Comment by echelon
2 months ago
I'm sick of open source "purism" too.
It's almost all caused by the OSI.
The OSI is owned and operated by the hyperscalers, who benefit from this in-fighting and license purity bullshit.
Is the only open source free labor? Some people think so.
Are open core and fair source licenses invalid? Yeah - let's make everything BSD/MIT so managed versions can go live inside AWS and GCP and make those companies billions, while the original authors see limited or no upside.
The fact is - open source needs salients to attack the hyperscalers. It needs to pay its engineers. It needs to expand and grow. One of the ways to do that is building a business around it. Another way is building an open core plus services that drive revenue to sustain and grow the business.
Having VC money doesn't invalidate what's being done. It helps the experiment evolve faster.
Nobody's here complaining about Google and Microsoft and Amazon, yet that's where 99.9% of our ire should be directed. And yet we're pouring venom on this small and valiant effort.
We dump on Redis and Elastic while they're being torn to shreds and eaten by trillion dollar giants.
This entire conversation has become perverted to the point we're no longer talking about what matters: freedom to operate independently of the giants that control the world.
Instead we're complaining about people taking a risk, trying to actually do something impactful that matters.
I will agree with the sentiment that a lot of these companies even pivot from open source because its quite hard to make money from open source in general, and yes the point of hyperscalers taking the same code and selling it as their own service at cheaper rates/ more integratability with other suite of products is also another point.
I get what you mean mate. Could have said the same but you said it better.
I'm pretty confused about what your point is at this point. No one can throw rocks at an open source effort, except for ones that cross a certain threshold of capital? I don't buy the argument that it's impossible for any company smaller than Google, Microsoft, Amazon, etc. to be a bad actor who deserves to be called out. I don't know enough about Deno to make my own judgment on whether they're a bad actor or not, but I don't find your arguments here to be particularly compelling that trying to criticize them is unfair.
OSI is a plague and many people here swear by it blindly. They hate the big hyperscalers but play right into their arms.
To the point with exception of Emacs, GCC and the Linux kernel, we can assert the GPL is dead for most practical purposes.
sorry but your post makes no sense.
Open source is a kind of licenses. Hyperscalers are a kind of service providers.
You cannot oppose these 2, these are completely unrelated concepts.
The hyper scalers are built on running and offering managed versions of open source software (Linux, reddis, postgres, elastic, java, python, JavaScript/node, docker, kubernetes,etc)
That's cute to think that they're unrelated, but open source is fundamentally about freedom.
The walls around us are constantly being built up and caving in. Hyperscalers are trying to own more and more of the commons.
The web is becoming atrophied, search is a sales funnel, communication is taxed, we're about to be asked to use ID to use the Internet, ... everything is being stolen from us.
The two could not possibly be more related.
Hyperscalers are well defined entities.
Open source is just a family of licenses. Nobody is "open source". There is no single entity nor there is a single unified community with shared values behind it. There are just many many projects/applications developped by entitites completely different in nature from the single hobbyist developer to the giant hyperscalers you mention with pretty much everything inbetween with vastly different goals, sizes, profesionalism, funding. And there are many different reasons to choose an open source license, some do it to attract contributions, others for the freedom it offers to the users and developpers, some want to force the license to stay the same, others do not mind if forks are proprietary, some companies will just do that for the optics/marketing and have more featureful version of their product sold under a proprietary license, etc, etc. You can't just put them all under a single "open source" banner and pretend "they" (whoever they are) need to fight against anyone else.
[dead]