Thread by @adamhjk

This misses the point wildly. There aren’t different understandings of what open source means. There are people who want what they want. If they still can get it, they’re usually fine with whatever.

https://twitter.com/_lennart/status/1335460450960596995

That’s why we buy software, use Twitter, whatever. Most of us aren’t open source zealots. We’re just people with a job to do.

So it’s not surprise to me that a bulk of @graylog2 users, especially customers, are fine with this. They’re not in the class of user who is affected!

This is why I think it’s a bad move to muddy the waters here. Adopting the SSPL is a business choice. Combined with a CLA that grants only them the privileges to relicense the whole, they can build derivative works that exceed the SSPL, but others cannot.

That means any SaaS biz not run by them is dead. That clears the way for them! Which is fine. It’s your business! Go for it.

But it isn’t open source anymore. Not because of the CLA, but because the mechanism they’re using isn’t an open source license. Mongo tried to make it one and withdrew before being rejected.

But it’s the same move they made. Lots of independent MongoDB saas offerings. Wiped out or acquired by MongoDB. This is the same move. It’s a rejection of open source in order to ensure a revenue stream.

A rejection that’s easily accepted by their customers (already paying, still get the code). Developers who don’t like the new contract can be painted as difficult. Businesses that are harmed, we’ll - that was the point.

But ultimately, open source is a vital part of the modern internet. It’s values and definition drove its success. When we let people define it “how it means to me”, we’re weakening it deeply. It’s not about just you. Never has been.

If you want to adopt a non open source license for your business, go for it. That can be a good decision (although I think the opposite is almost always better strategically, but I might be a hippie).

But come at the very community norms that fostered you? So you can have just a little more air cover? Get the fuck out of here.

That’s why what they need to do is stand by their choices. Say it proudly! We invest millions into @graylog2. We give you the source. We need revenue to continue that investment. The deal is only we get to run that SaaS stream for profit and keep the source closed.

Because that’s how you get this great thing for free. A lot of users are going to be fine with it. Some won’t. You don’t care about those users though, or you wouldn’t have changed the license!

Instead you do all that *and* weaken the foundation of open source. Yucky 💩. Don’t do it. Have some principles. Lead.