Comment by ericb | Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericb | Hacker News Reader

"Our Mission"

> We form companies centered around open source software projects with commercial applications. Rather than founders pitching us for investments, OCV identifies open source projects with traction and potential and seeks out builders and technologists to launch our ideas. OCV Fund I invests the personal capital of Sid Sijbrandij who serves as the General Partner of the firm.

So, this company takes the hard work of creator(s) who have been generous with their licensing terms, and in the name of "preventing them from using a more restrictive license" tries curtails their business opportunities by offering a legal structure with more favorable terms to end-users, thereby destroying the innovator's chance to make money off their invention.

To me, it seems like, if it offers no business opportunities, then people just won't offer innovations using permissive licenses for open core in the first place? If I'm going to give money to someone, I'd prefer it to be the innovator.

> To me, it seems like, if it offers no business opportunities, then people just won't offer innovations using permissive licenses for open core in the first place

I consider this a far better scenario than the current bait-and-switch culture.

The Free Software (and Open Source) community has put a lot of effort and volunteering work into constructing its world and gaining its reputation - based on putting the needs of the users first. Now a for-profit organization comes around, and wants to get all the credit for being "open source" without actually being open source?

They're poseurs. I'd say good riddance to them. Innovation is not a goal by itself - the purpose of innovation is to benefit people in general.

> Innovation is not a goal by itself - the purpose of innovation is to benefit people in general.

Which is already happening under permissive licenses.

> Innovation is not a goal by itself

I'm having trouble understanding this point of view. You have enough interest in this software to debate it, while not caring at all whether software continues to be made?

> Which is already happening under permissive licenses.

Sure, nobody claimed otherwise.

But putting "innovation" as an ideal is a red herring, designed to misdirect attention from the fact that "innovation" in proprietary technologies in general does not benefit the general population, and in some cases even stifles their freedom. Innovation, in order to be a worthy goal for a society, must serve the society in its whole, not just a couple of businessmen.

> You have enough interest in this software to debate it, while not caring at all whether software continues to be made?

I care about whether software continues to be made, but that's beyond the point, since the Free Software has succeeded in being developed even without support from for-profit companies (and sometimes even despite their sabotage - remember "Linux is a cancer"?).

Implying that software will somehow "not be made" without for-profit corporations employing programmers for peanuts is an old and tired argument, proven false by the very existence and triumph of the GNU system over most commercial systems.

> Implying that software will somehow "not be made" without for-profit corporations employing programmers for peanuts is an old and tired argument, proven false by the very existence and triumph of the GNU system over most commercial systems.

I'm saying that certain classes of open source software won't be created, and you're building a straw man to pretend I'm saying that no open source software will be created. Your argument here seems disingenuous.

I'm not building a straw man:

> > Innovation is not a goal by itself

> I'm having trouble understanding this point of view. You have enough interest in this software to debate it, while not caring at all whether software continues to be made?

This question is implying that, if I do not consider an innovation a goal by itself - and therefore don't consider open-core "good", morally speaking - then I don't care whether software continues to be made. The phrase "continues to be made" is all-or-nothing - software can either continue to be made, or not continue to be made, i.e. disappear. So:

> I'm saying that certain classes of open source software won't be created

It is certainly not what you said, as per above explanation. Perhaps it's what you intended to say, in which case please feel free to express your thoughts more precisely, so we can continue from there.

You could always say no. In general, copyleft has always prioritized freedom for the users over freedom for the developers and clearly this new initiative is based on that same philosophy.

How much more freedom than a permissive license does anyone need?

The term rug-pull is wildly misleading.

Let's describe the problem this is setting out to solve better--end users who have gotten something for free are upset that they no longer will continue getting updated somethings for free.

The old open source versions are still out there. If they want to use it, they can fork off.

Let's describe the problem this is setting out to solve better--end users who have gotten something for free are upset that they no longer will continue getting updated somethings for free.

Something for free? That had never been the point of FOSS. The developers are not obliged to provide free update to users.

The old open source versions are still out there. If they want to use it, they can fork off.

Of course, if the users have the relevant expertise/money. In reality, there's always limitations.

> Something for free? That had never been the point of FOSS.

FOSS = Free Open Source Software

Free doesn't mean cost.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com