Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the interesting-development dept.

Submitted via IRC for SoyCow4408

In May this year, users of popular open source project FUSE for macOS noticed the source code for the latest update was missing. The project had become closed source and was no longer free for commercial use. But as The Reg discovered when we had a talk with its maintainer, there was a very good reason for that – and it's not a good look for the many companies that used it.

[...]FUSE for macOS 3.9 can still be freely bundled with commercial software. Then in July of 2019, I released FUSE for macOS 3.10 with support for macOS Catalina under the new, less permissive licence, that requires specific written permission to bundle FUSE with commercial software," he told The Reg.

[...] How is this possible? "Most of the FUSE for macOS source code is released under the BSD licence. However, libfuse, for example, is released under the LGPL. I did what other developers of closed source FUSE forks have been doing for some time. The BSD licence has no copyleft, which means that no one is required to push changes upstream or make them available. As libfuse is covered under the LGPL, changes to it need to be made available, while changes to the kernel code can be kept closed," Fleischer explains.

The outcome? "After the licence change I have been contacted by several companies and negotiated some licence agreements. In this very regard closing the source code of FUSE was a success. In the very least it helped to raise awareness to the difficulties of sustainable open source software development," he said.

Fleischer added that: "I do not like continuing working on FUSE as a closed source project. It has been a hard decision and I have been thinking about it for a very long time, but I stand by it and it seemed to be the only option left to raise awareness and ensure the project's future."

He acknowledges though that: "I have not been very transparent about the licence change."

Source: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/12/16/fuse_macos_closed_source/


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @03:06PM (7 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @03:06PM (#933280)

    and that is why people should use GPL like instead of BSD like licenses. in the end, people that gave code to the bsd version will end to have to pay for their own code

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=2, Overrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 5, Informative) by barbara hudson on Tuesday December 17 2019, @06:17PM (5 children)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Tuesday December 17 2019, @06:17PM (#933344) Journal
    Not true. The original bed licensed code remains under the same license. You just can't use a newer derivative produced by the original author that they make available under a different license. Don't like it - fork it. But the original author has no obligation to make their newer version available under the same license. And if nobody feels it's worth their time to create a free fork, that's not the authors problem. Do without or pay for a license, or use the older version.
    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:39PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday December 17 2019, @10:39PM (#933465)

      But still, this new 3.10 commercial version contains code from external contributors, and those contributors should now pay to get the latest version. 3.9 might not be a viable option if a kernel upgrade in a future mac release breaks it.

      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday December 19 2019, @12:57AM

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday December 19 2019, @12:57AM (#934028) Journal

        They can always write their own compatible code. Just that it's probably not worth doing so, since nobody's going to pay them to do so.

        As people get older, idealism tends to take a back seat to realities like earning money when you're no longer young enough for employers to shout "crunch time" at you all the time because you'll tell them to fuck off.

        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    • (Score: 2) by DeVilla on Wednesday December 18 2019, @05:07AM

      by DeVilla (5354) on Wednesday December 18 2019, @05:07AM (#933604)

      But if you were a contributor to the project, you are now the owner's unpaid employee. But I guess if you contribute to BSD licensed projects, you probably intended to be the someone's unpaid employee.

    • (Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday December 18 2019, @08:15AM (1 child)

      by darkfeline (1030) on Wednesday December 18 2019, @08:15AM (#933656) Homepage

      Did you read the summary? The reason the author decided to make it closed source is because companies benefited from it commercially without contributing back to the project. Had the author released the code under GPL in the first place, they would probably not have been forced to close source the project to ensure its survival.

      There's a reason that the BSD license is often derisively referred to as the cuck license.

      --
      Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
      • (Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Thursday December 19 2019, @12:35AM

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Thursday December 19 2019, @12:35AM (#934015) Journal

        Did you read the summary? The reason the author decided to make it closed source is because companies benefited from it commercially without contributing back to the project. Had the author released the code under GPL in the first place, they would probably not have been forced to close source the project to ensure its survival.

        Did YOU read it? Because that's not what the author says:

        The outcome? "After the licence change I have been contacted by several companies and negotiated some licence agreements. In this very regard closing the source code of FUSE was a success. In the very least it helped to raise awareness to the difficulties of sustainable open source software development," he said.

        People can't live forever on air. If he can sell a few license agreements, more power to him.

        Or do you have a problem with people charging for software? Free didn't work out too well for RMS in the end - on the day the story of his comments about one of Jeffrey Epstein's victims broke, he was once again begging for a place to stay for a few months.

        At 66, sounds like a great retirement plan - for a hobo. Developers have a right to earn a living from their primary work product, and not just from "well you can sell support" bs.

        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
  • (Score: 1) by soylentnewsinator on Tuesday December 17 2019, @06:30PM

    by soylentnewsinator (7102) on Tuesday December 17 2019, @06:30PM (#933350)

    Well, it looks like FreeBSD did a re-implementation of it, so there appears to be a BSD licensed version after all. https://wiki.freebsd.org/WhatsNew/FreeBSD10 [freebsd.org]