Merge pull request #1 from fourstepper/open-source-licenses-thought

feat(posts): Free software licenses; A longer-term thought

src/lib/posts/free-software-licenses-thought.md

@@ -0,0 +1,201 @@
+---
+title: "Free software licenses; A longer-term thought"
+date: 2023-12-02T12:11:21+02:00
+tags: ["open-source", "software", "thoughts"]
+description: "What does Free actually mean, and to whom?"
+---
+
+## Introduction
+
+Hi and welcome to _Yet Another Internet Ramble_ ( _YAIR™_ ) of mine.
+
+What I aim to write down today aren't novel ideas; rather a distillation of my thoughts on
+some of the major Free software licenses, what freedoms each of these licenses carries out, how
+I have viewed these licenses in the past and how and why some of those views have shifted in me,
+over time.
+
+Before we start, I would like to mention that I am not a lawyer. Do not take any part of this
+article as legal advice.
+
+## Licenses in scope
+
+I have boiled down my own choices of open-source licenses to these:
+
+- MIT
+- Apache 2
+- GPLv3
+- AGPLv3
+
+If you would like to know more about any of the above licenses, feel free to make use of the licenses
+summary available below:
+
+<details><summary>
+<strong><u>Licenses summary</u></strong>
+</summary>
+
+#### [MIT](https://mit-license.org/)
+
+Simple, concise and **permissive** license. Offers just enough _lawyer-speak_ to be valid as a
+license for use in any company while giving all permissions to the party obtaining such
+licensed software.
+
+From [tldrlegal.com](https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/mit-license):
+
+> A short, permissive software license. Basically, you can do whatever you want as long as you include
+> the original copyright and license notice in any copy of the software/source.
+
+#### [Apache 2](https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html)
+
+Similarly to the MIT license, the Apache 2 license is a **permissive** license. The main
+difference between the two licenses is that the Apache 2 contains an explicit Patent Grant.
+
+From [opensource.com](https://opensource.com/article/18/2/apache-2-patent-license):
+
+> In essence, when a software developer contributes code to a project (i.e., the Work under the license),
+> he or she becomes a Contributor. Under the above term, Contributors are granting permission to use any
+> of their patents that may read on their contribution. This provides peace of mind to users since the
+> Contributor would likely be prevented from pursuing patent royalties from any users of the software
+> covering that contribution to the project.
+
+#### [GPLv3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.en.html)
+
+In simple terms: any software that is GPLv3 licensed must be, upon modification, also made available
+under the GPLv3 license.
+
+This guarantees that software once written and licensed under the GPLv3 licnese stays Free software.
+
+From [tldrlegal.com](https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v3-gpl-3):
+
+> You may copy, distribute and modify the software as long as you track changes/dates in source files.
+> Any modifications to or software including (via compiler) GPL-licensed code must also be made available
+> under the GPL along with build & install instructions.
+
+#### [AGPLv3](https://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl-3.0.en.html)
+
+I won't add any additional text of mine here.
+
+The description from
+[tldrlegal.com](https://www.tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-affero-general-public-license-v3-agpl-3-0) below
+is perfect:
+
+> The AGPL license differs from the other GNU licenses in that it was built for network software. You
+> can distribute modified versions if you keep track of the changes and the date you made them. As per
+> usual with GNU licenses, you must license derivatives under AGPL. It provides the same restrictions
+> and freedoms as the GPLv3 but with an additional clause which makes it so that source code must be
+> distributed along with web publication. Since web sites and services are never distributed in the
+> traditional sense, the AGPL is the GPL of the web.
+
+</details>
+
+## A common (A)GPLv3 freak
+
+I will admit. For quite some time, I have been a pretty heavy copyleft license freak. I've genuinly
+felt that licenses that are too permissive (i.e. MIT and Apache 2) give way too much freedom to
+those _evil corporations_ that only want to take software that we love and go full-on
+[Embrace, extend, and extinguish](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace%2C_extend%2C_and_extinguish) on it.
+
+I've also heavily preferred licensing my own projects under one of the above licenses.
+
+In my mind back then, in an ideal world, all software would be licensed under a copyleft license
+and market competitors would have to win out customers on different terms than proprietary technology. And
+don't get me wrong... a part of me _still feels like this would be incredible_ for users of software
+in general.
+
+The problem is that we don't live in an ideal world:
+
+- Most people just do not care about the license of the software that they are using, and that's fine.
+  Not caring is a choice in and of itself.
+- Alternative licenses and patents exist and (in countries I am aware of) _can and will_ be used by companies to
+  gain a competitive advantage.
+- Companies should be able to, to a reasonable extent, _own knowledge_, in my opinion. Furthermore, this
+  company's possibility of _owning knowledge_ can in turn be beneficial to Free software.
+
+From the above, I think my last point specifically would be the most controversial one in a discussion with
+someone who is heavily copyleft leaning (_LOL, this is starting to sound almost political_), so I will expand
+on my point right away.
+
+## The case for permissive licenses
+
+Take [37signals](https://37signals.com/), their product [Basecamp](https://basecamp.com/) and
+[Ruby on Rails](https://rubyonrails.org/), the Free software framework they've built for Basecamp in it's early
+days, as an example.
+
+Let's look at free software project that came out of the above equation,
+Ruby on Rails, which is published under an MIT license. There are two different licensing possibilities we
+could entertain as alternatives to the chosen MIT license for Ruby on Rails, so let's do just that and look
+at the possible consequences of such decision, specifically for Ruby on Rails:
+
+1. **Ruby on Rails isn't released as free software and doesn't make it's source available**
+   - RoR is used as the framework internally at 37signals for Basecamp and nowhere else. This can be considered
+     a net loss for everyone, as not even 37signals can benefit from other people potentially using RoR and
+     contributing back. Remember, 37signals aren't selling RoR - they are selling Basecamp, built on top of RoR.
+2. **Ruby on Rails is released under the AGPLv3 license**
+   - Ok, caught me. This is literally an impossible scenario, as RoR was released before the AGPLv3 license.
+     Not taking that into account.
+   - Now all companies (like Shopify) that would like to just slightly adjust the code would have to release the
+     source code under the AGPLv3, imposing a burden on said company trying out new things, testing performance
+     improvements in production etc.
+   - **Instead of choosing Rails, companies would instead choose something that leaves them more freedom**.
+
+The MIT license works so well for Ruby on Rails, because companies that use Ruby on Rails DO NOT SELL and
+aren't planning on selling Ruby on Rails itself.
+
+They instead all use Rails as a common baseline that propels
+_everyone_ forward and all contribute back to their common baseline.
+
+## The case for copyleft licenses
+
+The above story with the Ruby on Rails framework is a wonderful, long-term success story of free software.
+The common ground of all contributing companies and individuals is that none of them are trying to sell Rails
+directly.
+
+But what if that's your goal? What if you want to write software, make it open-source and sell it directly or
+over the network as SaaS? I believe this is where the copyleft licenses have an edge over fully permissive licenses.
+
+A good success story is [Grafana Labs](https://grafana.com/), the company. As one of their main products they offer
+[Grafana](https://grafana.com/grafana/), a data visualization tool, both in a managed, cloud SaaS version and an
+installable and supported version for the enterprise called the
+[Grafana Enterprise Stack](https://grafana.com/products/enterprise/). Obviously, you can also install Grafana
+yourself from binaries made available by Grafana or compile and install Grafana yourself.
+
+Grafana Labs are **experts** in building Grafana and feel confident that they offering is the strongest on
+the market. If a competitor, for example AWS, wanted to offer Grafana in their cloud environment and make some
+features special for AWS, they too would have to release the source code for their modifications, as Grafana is
+AGPLv3 licensed. Such setup incentivizes Amazon to instead try collaborating with Grafana to give their shared
+customers the best experience together, instead of blatantly taking the source code without contributing to the
+everyone's stable baseline.
+
+AGPLv3 works really well for Grafana, as their open-source project is directly their product.
+
+## Beyond the open-source licenses micro-war
+
+I think if we increase the scope from permissive and copy-left to open-source and closed-source, we can
+agree that open-source licenses are a net win for the society.
+
+Instead of focusing on the minor differences between open-source licenses, we could focus on some
+bigger issues:
+
+1. Where closed-source software is used, where open-source would REALLY benefit the society
+   (public healthcare and public institutions in general, for example).
+2. Detecting if open-source software is used as marketing for a technological project or a company in it's early
+   days, with plans to pull the rug in the future if the company fails to deliver financial results to it's
+   investors (like Hashicorp and their switch to the
+   [BSL](https://www.hashicorp.com/blog/hashicorp-adopts-business-source-license)).
+3. I don't know, [a large portion of the planet's population not having access to clean water](https://www.who.int/news/item/18-06-2019-1-in-3-people-globally-do-not-have-access-to-safe-drinking-water-unicef-who)...?
+
+As mentioned, some people make a choice not to care and use closed-source software. Others will choose to
+only use software that is Free software by definition.
+
+I myself am currently paid by a company that creates primarily closed-source, proprietary software. If I have
+the freedom to choose software to use for any given task, I will heavily prefer to use tools that
+are licensed under an open-source license and/or work with defined open standards. I will also happily
+try helping anyone around me find a suitable open-source alternative to software they are currently using.
+
+What I will stop doing is criticizing other people around me for software choices they are
+making for themselves. I definitely am guilty of doing this in the past.
+
+I definitely would also like to be more thankful for the software gifts I receive from strangers
+on the internet going into the future.
+
+To all people giving others gifts in the form of Free software;
+THANK YOU!