Open Source

31359 readers

361 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
No NSFW content
No hate speech, bigotry, etc

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

334

OSS-Blacklist: A blacklist for keeping track of OSS hostile companies/organizations (codeberg.org)

submitted 10 months ago by qaz to c/[email protected]

64 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Just saw the discussion around the Haier Home Assistant takedown and thought it would be good to materialize the metaphorical blacklist.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 29 points 10 months ago (4 children)

It’s probably a good idea to have a stronger definition and mission. Here are a few scenarios you should consider.

FSF defines anything that’s not copyleft as hostile. That’s most companies. I personally don’t think I can tell my users what to do with my software other than remove my liability so I vehemently disagree with Stallman.
Mongo wrote the SSPL and MariaDB wrote the BSL. Both licenses are seen as regressions. I personally respect the MariaDB case and have been harassed by too many Mongo salespeople to say the same about them.
Platforms like AWS are the reason companies like CockroachDB and Elastic implemented restrictive licenses.
IBM has been gutting open source through its acquisition of Red Hat. This is a common story; Oracle has been screwing *nix longer.
Protecting trademarks causes a lot of consternation from users. The Rust Foundation is the most recent example of this I remember blowing up the FOSS community.

I like your idea a lot. I think it needs some definition to be very successful!

[–] qaz 15 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

FSF defines anything that’s not copyleft as hostile. That’s most companies. I personally don’t think I can tell my users what to do with my software other than remove my liability so I vehemently disagree with Stallman.

I'm not planning on counting that as hostile behavior. Organizations can choose a license for their software (and I can choose not to buy/use it). This collection is mostly focused on companies that hurt existing Open Source software. Such as sending a cease and desist to an unofficial plugin/extension or closing down software that was originally open source.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Maybe your could also add organisations (companies, government agencies, NGOs,...) that create standards in such a way that the standard is hard or impossible to implement in open source implementations?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I.e reddit raising API costs high enough that it effectively killed it.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 10 months ago

I was more thinking about things like governments that decide that every implementation of something must be certified to be used, e.g. with wireless technologies. Not so much implementation as specification or legal compliance barriers to open source basically.

You raise a good point though, financial barriers such as per user pricing that are hard to implement for software distributed for free would be quite similar.

[–] psud 3 points 10 months ago

IBM is so good and so bad. Their machines are so open. Their software is not.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

i feel like the MPL is fsr superior and fairer than the MIT license

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

I personally use Apache 2.0 because it’s been upheld in court. I’m not sure if MPL has been directly challenged in court. Either way, I agree with the sentiment. The legal perspective is why I moved away from MIT/ISC.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 10 months ago

you should considwr MPL, if someone found a security vulneravility theyd be legally obligated to tell yoy for example. also, it still allows commerical closed source software. try it!!

[–] [email protected] -1 points 10 months ago (1 children)

FSF defines anything that’s not copyleft as hostile. That’s most companies. I personally don’t think I can tell my users what to do with my software other than remove my liability so I vehemently disagree with Stallman.

Citations please? Using a pushover license instead of copyleft is not hostility but a missed opportunity. Copyleft is about a community safeguarding itself and making sure the software can't be used in proprietary applications as much as possible.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Are you not familiar with Richard Stallman? Here’s one piece.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) (1 children)

We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source.” To make this clear, we avoid using those terms.

Your own citation disproves the hostility claim. To answer your question, yes I was a student associate member of the FSF. Nowhere did I learn to treat non copyleft licenses as "hostile." In fact, they are so prevalent that considering it hostile/harmful would be fruitless. They are still free licenses at the end of the day (at least the ones that dont violate the four freedoms)

Edit: actually we are hostile to some open source licenses, like the ones that prohibit commercial use to any group or individual! That's a huge no-no.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 10 months ago (1 children)

Your pull quote expresses hostility to not FSF idealism. I get that you drank the koolaid and believe you get to tell anyone who uses your product what they can do with it. That’s just telling a cook what they have to do with their ingredients just because they bought from you. It’s okay.