Kern Sibbald recently wrote this:
| While I was consulting with the Free Software Foundation Europe | (FSFE) on the Bareos copyright violations, Bacula Systems and I | began discussions with the FSFE on how to guarantee the long term | survival of Bacula. These discussions, extremely positive on both | sides and all points, recently lead to a formal written agreement | between myself, Bacula Systems, and the FSFE. There are a number of | points in the agreement, but probably the most important of all is | that Bacula Systems has now put in writing that it is an Open Source | company (at its heart), as it has always proclaimed, and will | contribute all the Enterprise code it creates to the Bacula | Community code base within at most a 5 year period. One exception | is that Bacula Systems is legally unable to contribute certain code | encumbered by third party proprietary license. The 5 year delay | gives Bacula Systems the chance to develop Enterprise features that | differentiate it, but ensures the continual growth of the Bacula | Community code. This model can possibly be used across the industry | to ensure the future of open source software in an environment where | development costs, particularly for hardware to do testing, are | prohibitive to the standard models of today.
(It's currently available at http://bacula.org/en/?page=news, but this doesn't look like a stable URL.)
I find this quite surprising. Does FSF Europe really think that this model is a good way to fund free software development, absorbing the leftovers from proprietary software?
On Sunday 05 January 2014 23:13:04 Florian Weimer wrote:
Does FSF Europe really think that this model is a good way to fund free software development, absorbing the leftovers from proprietary software?
No it absolutely does not! There's real Free Software companies and they show that it is possible to earn money without going Open Core.
This is a special and complicated case and no general position should be derived from that, especially not from a third party statement.
Here's an original source:
https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/bacula-agreement.en.html
Kind Regards, Torsten
Hi,
I agree that Open Core approaches can damage Free Software. They use the Free Software core as a bait to again create artificial lock-in to a proprietary solution on top.
But...
On 06.01.2014 23:34, Torsten Grote wrote:
On Sunday 05 January 2014 23:13:04 Florian Weimer wrote:
Does FSF Europe really think that this model is a good way to fund free software development, absorbing the leftovers from proprietary software?
No it absolutely does not! There's real Free Software companies and they show that it is possible to earn money without going Open Core.
We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free Software company" is. Companies do not produce software per se, they produce products and services, trying to offer a value that customers recognize and are willing to pay for. There is no special "Free Software economy" either, so I suggest we avoid inventing new terms and categories that are blurry or undefined.
Cheers,
Mirko.
On Tuesday 07 January 2014 13:03:58 Mirko Boehm wrote:
We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free Software company" is.
Did you see this?
https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/enterprise/freesoftwarecompany.en.html
Kind Regards, Torsten
On 07.01.2014 13:06, Torsten Grote wrote:
On Tuesday 07 January 2014 13:03:58 Mirko Boehm wrote:
We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free Software company" is.
Did you see this?
https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/enterprise/freesoftwarecompany.en.html
Yes. It does not contain a tangible definition. "Free Software companies are companies that have adopted business models in which the revenue streams are not tied to proprietary software model licensing conditions." Does that mean a bakery is a free software company? Is Slideshare a Free Software company, because it is not licensing proprietary software? And once a business is labeled a "Free Software company", what does that really mean? It is still not an entity operating with the common good in mind.
And please don't get me started on the economics aspects of it :-)
Mirko.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 01/07/2014 01:15 PM, Mirko Boehm wrote:
On 07.01.2014 13:06, Torsten Grote wrote:
On Tuesday 07 January 2014 13:03:58 Mirko Boehm wrote:
We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free Software company" is.
Did you see this?
https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/enterprise/freesoftwarecompany.en.htmlYes. It does not contain a tangible definition. "Free Software
companies are companies that have adopted business models in which the revenue streams are not tied to proprietary software model licensing conditions." Does that mean a bakery is a free software company? Is Slideshare a Free Software company, because it is not licensing proprietary software? And once a business is labeled a "Free Software company", what does that really mean? It is still not an entity operating with the common good in mind.
I think it might be fair to say that a free software company is a company that delivers software to customers and *never* supply software downstream under a proprietary license.
This excludes all companies that sell a non-free "enterprise solution", such as Alfresco and (case in point) Bacula.
+ 2014-01-07 Tue 13:15, Mirko Boehm mirko@fsfe.org:
On 07.01.2014 13:06, Torsten Grote wrote:
On Tuesday 07 January 2014 13:03:58 Mirko Boehm wrote:
We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free Software company" is.
Did you see this?
https://fsfe.org/freesoftware/enterprise/freesoftwarecompany.en.htmlYes. It does not contain a tangible definition. "Free Software companies are companies that have adopted business models in which the revenue streams are not tied to proprietary software model licensing conditions." Does that mean a bakery is a free software company? Is Slideshare a Free Software company, because it is not licensing proprietary software? And once a business is labeled a "Free Software company", what does that really mean? It is still not an entity operating with the common good in mind.
Well, no because they are not software companies to begin with.
http://hroy.eu/posts/facebook_open-source_company/
On 07.01.2014 14:35, Hugo Roy wrote:
Is Slideshare a Free Software company, because it is not
licensing proprietary software? And once a business is labeled a "Free Software company", what does that really mean? It is still not an entity operating with the common good in mind.
Well, no because they are not software companies to begin with.
Slideshare certainly is. However I am arguing that labeling a company a "Free Software company" is of no use, and does not even help promote freedom through Free Software.
What if a company that solely produces a Free Software product and a hardware manufacturer that uses proprietary firmware merge? The first will loose the label of being a "Free Software company". Now does that change the value of the contributions this company made to Free Software? The same goes for companies that have mixed proprietary and Free Software strategies. Are IBM's contributions to the Linux kernel less valuable because IBM also sells Lotus Notes?
We need to promote the benefits of the freedoms provided by our licenses, not condemn people for not agreeing with us. I see the labeling as a "Free Software company" only used for the latter, and never for the first. That is why I suggest we drop it, and promote our idea of freedom, but respect the decisions that people make for themselves.
...Open Core hurts Free Software... to go back to the original topic.
Cheers,
Mirko.
On Wednesday 08 January 2014 12.02:03 Mirko Boehm wrote:
What if a company that solely produces a Free Software product and a hardware manufacturer that uses proprietary firmware merge? The first will loose the label of being a "Free Software company". Now does that change the value of the contributions this company made to Free Software? The same goes for companies that have mixed proprietary and Free Software strategies. Are IBM's contributions to the Linux kernel less valuable because IBM also sells Lotus Notes?
All of this has actually been discussed a long time ago, in some depth.
See http://mail.fsfeurope.org/pipermail/gnubiz-disc/2000-December/000014.html
We need to promote the benefits of the freedoms provided by our licenses, not condemn people for not agreeing with us.
Software freedom is not just about licenses, and it is not about condemnation, but information. Labels are about giving users a chance to make an informed decision based on their own set of values and what they want to promote.
This is an old and proven concept, and something we have yet to establish.
But there is a strong need given the amount of misinformation by third parties and companies that claim to be doing "Open Source" when they are in fact locking their users in perfectly is a problem on several levels.
Firstly, it muddies the water enough that companies which do not use the same tactics find it much harder to communicate their USP and value proposition.
Secondly it damages the overall value proposition of the community, as people no longer know what we stand for or what differentiates us when they experience the same behaviour from these self-proclaimed "Free Software" companies and thus conclude for themselves that software freedom is essentially fraudulent marketing they want nothing to do with in the future.
That kind of business behaviour is actively harmful to the technical, policial, social and economic principles and aims of software freedom.
Best regards, Georg
Hi Mirko, *, Am Dienstag, 7. Januar 2014, 13:03:58 schrieb Mirko Boehm:
We should not argue like that. There is no definition of what a "Free Software company" is. Companies do not produce software per se, they produce products and services, trying to offer a value that customers recognize and are willing to pay for. There is no special "Free Software economy" either, so I suggest we avoid inventing new terms and categories that are blurry or undefined.
100% agreed, lets not start a new battle on words or definitions without any need,
Elmar
* Torsten Grote:
On Sunday 05 January 2014 23:13:04 Florian Weimer wrote:
Does FSF Europe really think that this model is a good way to fund free software development, absorbing the leftovers from proprietary software?
No it absolutely does not! There's real Free Software companies and they show that it is possible to earn money without going Open Core.
Thanks for your clarification.
This is a special and complicated case and no general position should be derived from that, especially not from a third party statement.
The background appears to be this: Some contributors entered contradictory contracts with both FSFE and the Bacula maintainer, and in order avoid placing them in legal jeopardy, FSFE and the Bacula maintainer reached an agreement that attempts to resolve this conflict.
Here's an original source:
https://fsfe.org/activities/ftf/bacula-agreement.en.html
This web page does not reflect well what's actually in the agreement, but that's probably unavoidable due to its complexity. But I think you should really qualify "This includes the possibility to create a non-free version of their project to stand beside the free version, if they choose." with "providing that all previous contributors agree to such a relicensing of the project".
What I find most surprising is this: The agreement gives the Bacula maintainer permission to use "under other licenses" (i.e. proprietary ones) contributions that were previously covered by the FSFE FLA (item B.1), even if they were *not* covered by a FLA with the Bacula maintainer. The agreement is also extremely broad: interpreted literally, it applies to *all* copyrights transferred to FSFE under *any* FLA, not just the one for Bacula; section B.1 talks about "software" in general, not "Software" (the Bacula code base), and the term "Beneficiary" is not restricted to Bacula project contributors.
So while I believe that you had the goal of resolving this conflict in the best possible way, the effect is rather disastrous as far as your role as fiduciary is concerned.
On Wednesday 08 January 2014 22:10:17 Florian Weimer wrote:
So while I believe that you had the goal of resolving this conflict in the best possible way, the effect is rather disastrous as far as your role as fiduciary is concerned.
Please note that I was not personally involved with this. I'd suggest you contact FSFE's legal team [1] and share your concerns with them, because I don't know how many of them are following this list.
Kind Regards, Torsten