1. 20
  1.  

  2. 15

    That’s why I keep cautioning people against licenses with “but”‘s. It’s still proprietary and you can lose it at any time. Same goes for “free for open source” and “free for non-commercial use” licenses. If there’s a clause that allows the copyright owners to revoke your license at any time, chances are they will.

    1. 6

      Whaaaaat!? That’s a shocker!

      I take back anything I said about building on CHERI as is. Back to SiFive people!

      1. 5

        Sigh. More and more I feel that avoiding this sort of nonsense is half the purpose of open source licenses, because the stuff you use will just always be there. Useful RISC-V devices might not, in practical terms, always be around and available if nobody decides to sink money into making them… but the barrier to entry to creating more of them is low, so it’s more likely that it will keep happening. You’re also less likely to be bottlenecked on one supplier.

        The other approach to protecting oneself against a company or service you rely on suddenly going poof is the approach of governments everywhere: If you want something that will still be supported in 50 years, you buy it from Big Companies. Intel, Microsoft, and of course the granddaddy of them all, IBM. These companies may not ACTUALLY be Too Big To Fail, but they are too big to fail quickly. Or change quickly, for that matter. So you have some actually pretty decent guarantees that your mission-critical service will still be available in the future.

        1. 5

          I’ve seen a company go all in porting everything to an Oracle webapp servers, and then a few years later Oracle killed development and the company was stuck.

          I’d still choose open source for the reason you describe, unlikely to be bottlenecked on one supplied.

          1. 2

            “because the stuff you use will just always be there”

            It gets us further. Then, patent suits and the API ruling showed open licenses couldn’t achieve their goals alone. Who cares if an app is around for next 20 years if Microsoft or Oracle will force me to hire a multi-million dollar legal team for using it. Makes their stuff seem cheap by comparison.

            So, we need open licenses and legal reforms that protect us. Then again, legal reforms plus utilitarian, source-available licenses can solve the same problems. Irrevocability if still receiving payment should cover this threat. Open may or may not be needed. Legal reforms are, though.

            1. 1

              Half? For me more like 60-70%…. As a developer, I need tools and libraries that are around for my software to be meaningfully useful. If the code I need no longer is available to me that’s probably the most impactful.

            2. 2

              this makes no sense whatsoever! argh! I really like MIPS but this type of action makes impossible to support it.

              1. 2

                Hello RISC-V!