1. 45
  1.  

  2. 21

    I’ve never used CockroachDB, but I certainly wouldn’t consider it now, as it’s proprietary. As others have pointed out, these companies don’t pay for the compilers, operating systems, HTTP servers, or other things they use. This is all some people screaming ’‘The buck stops with me.’’; now that they’re more well-known, they find it fine to switch from a permissive license to a proprietary one, but if they actually wanted to stop some of this, they’d have been using something such as the AGPL the entire time.

    Now, with regards to @matt :

    Amazon has amply demonstrated that, left to their own devices, they will happily run SaaS at a loss until they run an Open Source project’s funding arm out of business, and then privatize all future development by keeping their modifications internal.

    You’re prevented from doing this if you use the AGPL. Secondly, there are plenty of projects, such as GNU and OpenBSD, which are funded by donations and whatnot.

    Freedom is an inherently self-contradictory concept — we need to limit your freedom to swing your fist if we’re to preserve the freedom of others’ faces to remain unpunched.

    This is what the GPL and its variations do, enabling freedom and preventing making Free Software proprietary. That example has nothing to do with this proprietary license that has been adopted by this company.

    If we treat it as an absolute, “freedom zero” ends in zero freedom when it comes to any kind of distributed infrastructure software, with Amazon leveraging their vast economies of scale to effectively co-opt and close-source any non-hobbyist Open Source projects they wish.

    Well, you said it yourself, ’‘non-hobbyist’’; so, Free Software written by people who aren’t paid for it doesn’t matter much to you? The many Free Software projects doing just fine that people are paid to work on don’t matter to you? You are naive to believe this ’‘venture capitalist’’ rhetoric and pretend that freedom zero is an issue. You’re either arguing in bad faith or don’t know what you’re writing about, in my eyes.

    1. 2

      I’ve never used CockroachDB, but I certainly wouldn’t consider it now, as it’s proprietary

      That’s simply false. Every version released so far remains open source, parts of what is released in the future remains open source and other parts revert to open source after three years.

      1. 2

        As others have pointed out, these companies don’t pay for the compilers, operating systems, HTTP servers, or other things they use.

        People keep bringing this up but I’m not sure how much it really matters to you all. As in, how important it is in your decision-making on what products to use. So, let’s say it ran on Windows Server where Microsoft made about everything you described and they charged an extra $10,000. Would you say the same then? Or what if they made a donation to each project or component writer that’s similar to the market rate for those things in proprietary software? Would you cheer them on with the new license given they paid for what they used before asking others to do the same? That’s my main question here.

        Although I think it’s about ethics, I noticed another issue: your stated preference might cause indirect harm to F/OSS in the startup world if they acted on what you said. I doubt you intended that. The scenario is a group of people with barely any money on top of labor who have to iterate as fast as possible. In most situations, they’ll go for whatever is easiest. Outside major foundations (eg Linux, Apache), it’s actually harder to locate and pay F/OSS suppliers than it is proprietary suppliers or just paid support for popular F/OSS who aren’t the developers. If startups followed your motto, then they’d probably send more funding away from F/OSS developers just because other people are easier to pay. I mean, proprietary vendors that aren’t huge like Oracle go out of their way to make getting paid easy. So, your expectation might backfire in situations where team is highly time-constrained, buyers are just lazy, or corporate buyer is mainly paying for name to assign blame to.

      2. 17

        Interested in hearing other views. But I think what they are doing is reasonable.

        Can this be extrapolated into a ‘BLISS’ principle: ‘Buy License if SaaS’ (just came up with abbreviation :-) )

        “.. The one and only thing that you cannot do is offer a commercial version of CockroachDB as a service without buying a license. ..”

        They should probably provide some examples of what they consider a CockroachDB service, vs a service that’s using CockroachDB underneath.

        1. 10

          agreed. copying my comment over from hn:

          this seems like an excellent licence, clearly spelling out the intent of the copyright, rather than trying to fashion a one-size-fits-all set of rules. it reminds me of cory doctorow’s point that, intuitively, if some community theatre wanted to dramatise one of his works, they should be able to just do so, but if a major hollywood studio wanted to film it they should require a licence, and it is hard to draft a copyright law that does this properly.

          1. 13

            Can this be extrapolated into a ‘BLISS’ principle: ‘Buy License if SaaS’

            It can be. The question is not whether someone could do a thing, it’s whether they should do a thing.

            And the answer to that question is: Cockroach Labs itself wants to offer CockroachDB as SaaS, and they see it as absolutely necessary that they have the exclusive right to decide whether anyone else can do that and charge money for the privilege. Fair enough, they hold the copyright on the software (presumably) and can relicense it as they wish.

            But what happens to Cockroach Labs’ SaaS offering if every other component of the stack they run on adopts the same license and says “free but only if you’re not a for-profit SaaS”? If they have to pay dozens or, more likely, hundreds of separate license fees for the privilege of using all the other open-source components they depend on?

            The answer is Cockroach Labs would not be in the SaaS business for very long after that, because they wouldn’t be able to turn a profit in such a world. The categorical imperative catches up to people. And the real result would be everybody forking from the last genuinely open-source version and routing around the damage that way.

            1. 11

              But what happens to Cockroach Labs’ SaaS offering if every other component of the stack they run on adopts the same license and says “free but only if you’re not a for-profit SaaS”?

              but cockroachdb, as far as i can make out, is not doing this - they’re saying “free, unless you’re a for-profit cockroach-db-as-a-saas”, that is, if what you are selling is a hosted version of cockroachdb itself, rather than some other saas product that happens to use cockroach as a backend.

              1. 5

                Right. So assuming that Cockroach Labs offers no services except CockroachDB-as-a-service and a support line, Cockroach Labs would not have to pay for any additional licenses if all dependencies in their software stack switched to CockroachDB’s new license.

                I think very few companies would be harmed if this license became prevalent. (I make no statement on the worth of the services of the few companies that would be harmed by such mass relicensing.)

              2. 4

                But most of the deps of CockroachDB aren’t created by corporations who need to monetize them directly.

                1. 12

                  Exactly. I think different kinds of projects end up preferring different kinds of licenses, for good reasons:

                  • core infrastructure — libraries, runtimes, kernels, compilers — permissive and public domain-ish — because “stuff you were going to write anyway”, not written directly for profit, stuff you want to just exist and would love it if someone made a successful fork (because you wouldn’t have to maintain it anymore! — that’s most of my github projects) etc.
                  • end user / GUI / client software — desktop, mobile apps — copyleft — because someone else turning your app into a proprietary one sucks, you want user freedom for the end users
                  • SaaSable / Web Scale™ / serious business oriented server software — distributed DBMSes like this one — these “Buy License if SaaS” licenses — because reasons everyone discussed with the SaaS thing

                  Of course not everyone will agree with my philosophy here, but I think it’s good and much more productive than “I hate GPL” / “I hate permissive” / “the anti-SaaS stuff is destroying all FOSS ever”. You don’t have to attach yourself personally to a kind of license, you can adopt a philosophy of “different licenses for different kinds of projects”.

                  1. 1

                    core infrastructure — libraries, runtimes, kernels, compilers — permissive and public domain-ish — because “stuff you were going to write anyway”,

                    I don’t think that’s true given the value that great infrastructure can provide, esp with good ecosystem. The mainframe companies, VMS Inc, Microsoft, and Apple all pull in billions of dollars selling infrastructure. The cloud companies sell customized and managed versions of open infrastructure. The vendors I reference making separation kernels, safety-critical runtimes, and certifying compilers are providing benefits you can’t get with most open code. Moreover, stuff in that last sentence costs more to make both in developer expertise and time.

                    I think suppliers should keep experimenting with new licenses for selling infrastructure. These new licenses fit that case better than in the past. If not open, then shared source like Sciter has been doing a long time. I’d still like to see shared source plus paying customers allowed to make unsupported forks and extensions whose licenses can’t be revoked so long as they pay. That gets really close to benefits of open source.

                    1. 1

                      Of course there’s still companies selling specialized, big, serious things. But FOSS infrastructure has largely won outside of these niches. Linux is everywhere, even in smart toilets and remote controlled dildos :D Joyent has open sourced their whole cloud stack. Google has open sourced Bazel, Kubernetes, many frontend frameworks… Etc. etc.

                      shared source plus paying customers allowed to make unsupported forks and extensions whose licenses can’t be revoked so long as they pay

                      IIRC that’s the Unreal Engine 4 model. It’s.. better than hidden source proprietary I guess.

                      separation kernels, safety-critical runtimes, and certifying compilers are providing benefits you can’t get with most open code

                      I’ve heard of some of these things.. but they’ve been FOSS mostly. NOVA: GPLv2. Muen: GPLv3. seL4: mix of BSD and GPLv2. CompCert: mix of non-commercial and GPLv2.

                      1. 4

                        “ But FOSS infrastructure has largely won outside of these niches. “

                        Free stuff that works well enough is hard to argue with. So, FOSS definitely wins by default in many infrastructure settings.

                        “but they’ve been FOSS mostly. NOVA: GPLv2. Muen: GPLv3. seL4: mix of BSD and GPLv2. CompCert: mix of non-commercial and GPLv2.”

                        They’ve (pdf) all been cathedral-style, paid developments by proprietary vendors or academics. A few became commercial products. A few were incidentally open-sourced with one, Genode, having some community activity. seL4 may have some. Most seL4-based developments are done by paid folks that I’ve seen. The data indicates the best results come in security-focused projects when qualified people were paid to work on the projects. The community can do value-adds, shake bugs out, help with packaging/docs, translate, etc. The core design and security usually requires a from core team of specialists, though. That tends to suggest paid models with shared source or a mix that includes F/OSS are best model to incentivize further development.

                        “and remote controlled dildos :D “

                        There’s undoubtedly some developer that got laid off from their job shoving Windows CE or Symbian into devices that were once hot who dreamed of building bigger, better, and smarter dildos that showed off what their platforms had. The humiliation that followed wasn’t a smiling matter, Sir. For some, it may have not been the first time either.

                        1. 2

                          cathedral-style, paid developments by proprietary vendors or academics

                          Yes, the discussion was about licensing, not community vs paid development. For this kind of project, I don’t see how non-FOSS shared source licensing would benefit anyone.

                          1. 2

                            Individuals outside business context could use, inspect, and modify the product for anywhere from cheap to free. Commercial users buy a license that’s anything from cheap to enterprise-priced. The commercial use generates revenues that pay the developers. Project keeps getting focused work by talented people. Folks working on it might also be able to maintain work-life balance. If 40-hr workweek, then they have spare time and energy for other projects (eg F/OSS). If mix of shared-source and F/OSS, a percentage of the funds will go to F/OSS.

                            I think that covers a large number of users with acceptable tradeoffs. Harder to market than something free. The size of the security and privacy markets makes me think someone would buy it.

                  2. 3

                    They aren’t today.

                    But yesterday, CockroachDB was open-source software.

                    1. 6

                      Yeah people love free stuff and not paying for it.

                      1. 4

                        Well, most of the free stuff I have access to is reasonably priced.

                        1. 2

                          Ok, I meant to say not paying what it is worth (draining the producers).

                        2. 6

                          Yes, people love getting things for free.

                          Cockroach Labs likes getting things for free, but has decided that they don’t like giving things away for free. This is a choice they have the legal right to make, of course, but that doesn’t necessarily make it the right decision.

                          From a business perspective, it’s a very bad sign. A company suddenly switching from open source to proprietary/“source available” is usually a company where the vultures are already circling. And mostly it indicates a fundamental problem with the business model; changing the license like this doesn’t fix that problem, and in fact can’t fix it. If demand for CockroachDB is significant enough, other people will fork from the last open-source release and keep it going. If demand for it isn’t significant enough, well, they won’t. And either way, Cockroach Labs probably won’t make back what the VCs invested into it.

                          From a software-ecosystem perspective, it’s more than a bit hypocritical. Lots of people build and distribute permissive-licensed software, and Cockroach Labs has, if not profited (since they may not be profitable) from it, at least saved significant up-front development cost as a result. If what they wanted was a copyleft-style share-and-share-alike, there were licenses available to let them do that (which, from a business perspective, still would not have saved them). But that’s not really what they wanted (and by “they” I mean the people in a position to impose decisions, which does not mean the engineering team or possibly even the executive team). What they seem to have wanted was to be proprietary from the start, and therefore to have absolute control over who was allowed to compete with them and on what terms. There is no open-source or Free Software license available which achieves that goal; the AGPL comes closest, but still doesn’t quite get there.

                          And there simply may not have been a business model available for CockroachDB that would satisfy their investors, but Cockroach Labs was founded at a time when it already should have been clear – especially to a founding team of ex-Googlers – where the market was heading with respect to managed offerings for this type of software. They could have tried other options, like putting more work into integrating with cloud providers’ marketplaces, but instead they knowingly signed up to get their lunch eaten, and do in fact appear to have gotten their lunch eaten.

                          1. 9

                            Cockroach Labs likes getting things for free, but has decided that they don’t like giving things away for free.

                            You are hinting that Cockroach Labs are trying to act as freeloaders while ignoring the real elephant in the room: SaaS providers.

                            1. 0

                              You are hinting that Cockroach Labs are trying to act as freeloaders while ignoring the real elephant in the room: SaaS providers.

                              I’m pointing out the simple fact that Cockroach Labs wants to have the right to build a business on open-source software, but wants to say that other entities shouldn’t have that same right. That’s literally what this comes down to, and literally what their new license tries to say.

                            2. 3

                              Cockroach Labs likes getting things for free, but has decided that they don’t like giving things away for free.

                              That’s an unfair characterization. The code they use is made by people who like giving stuff away for free. If permissive, they’ve already chosen a license that lets commercial software reuse it without giving back any changes. If copyleft under GPL-like license, there’s already bypasses to sharing like SaaS that they’re implicitly allowing by not using a strong license. They’re also doing this in a market where most users of their libraries freeload. They then release the code under that license knowing all this for whatever reasons they have in mind.

                              And then Cockroach Labs, whose goal is a mix of profit and public benefit, uses some of the code they were given for free. They modify the license to suit their goals. Each party contributing code should be fine with the result because each one is doing exactly what you’d expect with their licenses and incentives. If anything, CockroachDB is going out of their way to be more altruistic than other for-profit parties. They could be locking stuff up more.

                              1. 1

                                They approve of the “take open-source software and build a business on it without financially supporting all the authors in a sustainable way” approach when it’s them doing it with other people’s software. They don’t approve when it’s Amazon doing it with CockroachDB. You can try to spin it, but that’s really what it comes down to.

                                And they want control over who’s allowed to compete with them and who’s allowed to use their software for what purposes. That’s fundamentally incompatible with their software being open source, and they’ve finally realized that, but it’s a bit late to be suddenly trying to change to proprietary.

                                1. 2

                                  I agree it won’t be open source software when they relicense it. I disagree that there’s any spin. I tell people who want to force contributions or money back to put it in their license with a clause blocking relicensing to non-OSS/FOSS. Yet, the OSS people still keep using licenses or contributing to software with such licenses that facilitate exactly what CockroachDB-like companies are doing.

                                  I don’t see how it’s evil or hypocritical for a for-profit company acting in self-interests to use licensed components whose authors choose knowing it facilitates that. It wasn’t the developers only option. There was a ton of freeloading and hoarding of permissively-licensed components before they made the choice. Developers wanting contributions from selfish parties, esp companies, should use licenses that force like AGPL or Parity. The kinds of companies they gripe about mostly avoid that stuff. This building on permissive licensing and relicensing problem has two causes, not one.

                                  Note: There’s also people that don’t care if companies do that since they’re just trying to improve software they and other people use. Just figured I should mention that in case they’re reading.

                                  1. 2

                                    I don’t see how it’s evil or hypocritical for a for-profit company acting in self-interests to use licensed components whose authors choose knowing it facilitates that.

                                    It’s not “evil”. But it is at least a bit hypocritical to decide that you’re OK doing something yourself, but not with other people doing it too.

                                    Given their intended business model, CockroachDB probably should have been proprietary from the start. Would’ve avoided this specific headache (but probably still wouldn’t have avoided the problem with the business model they chose).

                                    1. 1

                                      “But it is at least a bit hypocritical to decide that you’re OK doing something yourself, but not with other people doing it too.” “CockroachDB probably should have been proprietary from the start”

                                      “three years after each release, the license converts to the standard Apache 2.0 license”

                                      Amazon isn’t giving all their stuff away after three years under a permissive, open-source license. What we’re really discussing is a company that will delay open-sourcing code by three years, not just license proprietary software. Every year, they’ll produce more open-source code. It will be three years behind the proprietary, shared-source version everyone can use except for SaaS companies cloning and selling their software. You’re talking like they’re not giving anything back or doing any OSS. They are. It’s just in a way that captures some market value out of it.

                                      In contrast, the people making OSS dependencies usually aren’t doing anything to capture business value out of the code. If anything, they’re not even trying to. They’re directly or indirectly encouraging commercial freeloading with a license that enables it instead of using one that forbids it. So, CockroachDB doesn’t owe them anything or have any incentive to pay. Whereas, CockroachDB’s goal is to make profit on their own work. The goal differences are why there’s no hypocrisy here. It would be different if the component developers were copylefting or charging for CockroachDB’s dependencies with the company not returning code or pirating the components.

                                      1. 1

                                        but not with other people doing it too

                                        Have you heard anyone at Cockroach Labs say this? Wouldn’t they be able to offer their service based on 3 year old versions of every piece of OSS they use? It seems to me this license would work fine transitively, so there’s no hypocrisy involved.

                        3. 3

                          If they have to pay dozens or, more likely, hundreds of separate license fees for the privilege of using all the other open-source components they depend on?

                          Sounds good to me. They have had millions of dollars of funding, they can easily pay some money to people who deserve it.

                          1. 1

                            Or we’ll get something like ASCAP, but for software instead of music.

                            1. 7

                              As a long time ASCAP member, I hope we could do better.

                          2. 3

                            They should probably provide some examples of what they consider a CockroachDB service, vs a service that’s using CockroachDB underneath.

                            I believe I read somewhere that they considered the user having the ability to freely modify the schema as being “as a service”

                            Edit: found it

                            1. 2

                              The user of a “CockroachDB as a Service” company, that is (not just a user of CockroachDB in general)

                              1. 2

                                Thx @trousers @johnaj for clarification. I guess, for me this ‘muddied’ waters so to speak.

                                Say, hypothetically, I have a SaaS that allows my customers to upload logs from IoT devices, and schema (in my DSL) explaining the data, and some SQL-like (but can also be my DSL) queries about their data.

                                My service is to provide the results of the queries back to them via dashboards/PDFs etc. The hypothetical SaaS charges for that service (and hopes, in some distant future, to make net profit)

                                Underneath, I want to use CockroachDB.

                                When customer provides their data explanation in DSL, I actually translate it into CockroachDB schema, and create materialized and non-materialized views (I do not know if the DB supports this, let’s assume – it does). I do that so that customer’s queries can be translated to database statements more easily (and run efficiently).

                                So I have a SaaS service, and allow customers (although indirectly) to create schema specific to their data in my database.

                                Will I need license?

                                From what I am reading right now, I will.
                                This is not good or bad – but I hope, then, Postgres would never adapt BLISS.

                                May be I am wrong .. so hope to hear what others think.

                                1. 2

                                  Will I need license?

                                  No. I think anything that is indirect (they are not using the wire protocol or directly issuing queries) is not going to require a license.

                                  That said, I can see how your example is demonstrative of a possible problem – if Amazon created like a graphQL layer in front of it that just sort of translated to and from CockroachDB would that give them safety license wise – and I think it would.

                                  1. 3

                                    Right, there is ambiguity about the ‘type or class’ of layers that when added, will not require a license vs layers that will require a license.

                                    If I correctly understand the spirit and the intent of their license, I actually think CockroachDB should protect themselves, and specify that following layers:

                                    a) security + access control layers

                                    b) performance + scalability layers

                                    c) General (not domain specific) query meta language layers

                                    d) Deployment layers (eg ansible roles on top)

                                    e) Hardware layer underneath (eg optimized FPGA/GPUs)

                                    If a SaaS business added on top of their DB only the above layers in essense, and then sold as SaaS together with CocroachDB – they would need the BLISS license.

                                    Also, at the end of the day, their license may end up being, still, free for some businesses that fall under BLISS – but I think, CockrouchDB team and their investors, want to be in control of that decision…

                                2. 1

                                  Right. Good clarification.

                            2. 4

                              This looks like a great license for both the company and self-hosting users. It seems to provide a lot of freedom while protecting their interests as well.

                              I really liked their assessment of the tiered model. It definitely seems like it would almost always lead to a watered down free version.

                              1. 2

                                What I find interesting is that all these “source-available” licenses we’re seeing now seem exclusively to come from database projects. Appearently they address a problem that only exists for database software, or has anybody ever seen a non-db project using one of these licenses?

                                The reason for the license switch also always appears to be Amazon. So, why don’t you expressly exclude Amazon from the license? Add a sentence like:

                                This software is not licensed to Amazon.com, Inc., on the base of this License.

                                to your license, and Amazon can’t (and won’t) use the software. Why invent new licenses for the problem?

                                1. 1

                                  Microsoft has a Shared-Source Initiative for Windows or parts of it. Quite a few RTOS’s in embedded have source licensing. Sciter’s licensing is fairly interesting. They’ve been around a while, too. SugarCRM for a while. TrueCrypt. This list has games, graphics, and some other stuff confusingly mixed with things that got open sourced later on.

                                2. 2

                                  Copyfarleft would have solved this too

                                  1. 2

                                    Copyfarleft is a good joke but it won’t help VCs get their investment back.

                                    1. 5

                                      Good.

                                  2. -1

                                    Wow this is pretty lame. “We’re committed to building a powerful core product that is open source” and they’re rejecting open source licenses for one that doesn’t respect freedom zero.

                                    1. 13

                                      Amazon has amply demonstrated that, left to their own devices, they will happily run SaaS at a loss until they run an Open Source project’s funding arm out of business, and then privatize all future development by keeping their modifications internal.

                                      Freedom is an inherently self-contradictory concept — we need to limit your freedom to swing your fist if we’re to preserve the freedom of others’ faces to remain unpunched.

                                      If we treat it as an absolute, “freedom zero” ends in zero freedom when it comes to any kind of distributed infrastructure software, with Amazon leveraging their vast economies of scale to effectively co-opt and close-source any non-hobbyist Open Source projects they wish.

                                      1. 1

                                        “Freedom is an inherently self-contradictory concept — we need to limit your freedom to swing your fist if we’re to preserve the freedom of others’ faces to remain unpunched.”

                                        Just chiming in to say that’s a very simple and original way to describe it. Might quote you on that. :)

                                        1. 2

                                          I think @matt is riffing on a classic quote here.

                                          1. 1

                                            Thanks. That one’s great, too.

                                          2. 2

                                            Pretty sure I’m badly cribbing from someone else, although I can’t recall who at the moment

                                        2. 6

                                          Using “lame” as a put-down is not cool.

                                          1. 5

                                            Please use more care if you’re going to chide people. If you only try to shame someone you’re being mean rather than informative. It’s not effective at convincing that poster or the readers that this is something they should care about. Especially on a sensitive topic like this where there’s a wealth of existing material to reference so that people can learn more about something they’ve probably never considered.

                                            1. 5

                                              The word “lame” has multiple meanings, one of which (as in, “a lame excuse”) is entirely appropriate as a put-down.

                                                1. 4

                                                  Regardless of etymology, “lame” in practice when used as in the GP, has a very distinct separation from physical impairment. I’d even argue that its predominant use is the non-physical meaning.

                                                  I can’t recall ever hearing a person with a physical impairment referred to as “lame”; only animals, and even then, only animals whose “purpose” is compromised by the injury/disability (eg a lame race horse).

                                              1. 1

                                                Eh, suppressing people’s gut reactions isn’t really cool either. If someone don’t have a particular argument but dislikes a move by a company, what should they say? “Lame” is pretty tame and succinct, given the alternatives.

                                                Certainly, if someone can’t think of how to put their dislike into words, they should probably reflect on why they dislike it. But being able to express “I don’t like this” is probably important to avoid echo chamber-y effects.

                                                I’m also worried that negativity in the programming community is being suppressed entirely. It’s becoming harder to dissent with any given point of view without being perceived as hostile. But… that’s probably a comment for another day, since litigating that through the lens of a reactionary “that’s lame” reply wouldn’t be productive.

                                                The main point is that if someone feels something is lame, it’s often valuable for the company to hear it. I would personally want to hear it for my own company. In fact, it’s why I post to lobsters: it’s easy to filter out gratuitous negativity from rational negativity, so it’s nice to get a barometer of your strategic moves.

                                                Back to the topic: I think the original poster’s concern may have been that they didn’t adopt some version of GPL, which would be a fair point. Personally, I’m happy to see some kind of BSD-esque license in play, but people do feel strongly about GPL. I wonder which version of GPL would have been appropriate in this situation?

                                                1. 5

                                                  I think you mean lame in the informal way it’s often used everyday to mean ‘not cool’.

                                                  Technically lame is an adjective describing one’s inability to walk ‘normally’ (like limping) and has just over time come to mean ‘not cool’.

                                                  Seen as a word to describe a person with a limp that has taken on general purpose negative connotations with time, it understandably seem like a word that a person who has been disabled finds offensive.

                                                  Edit: ‘lame’ is so prevalently used be a tame way of critiquing something (akin to ’ that sucks’ or ‘that’s uncool’), that I imagine many people aren’t aware of the history of the word. I know I wasn’t until high school or college, and that’s as a native English speaker.

                                                  Given that, it’s probably a lot more constructive to explain to people that find themselves using it, what the history of the word is, instead of telling them not to use it with zero context.

                                                  1. 3

                                                    I had no idea that so many people were unaware of the original meaning of the word!

                                                    1. 0

                                                      So someone who can’t walk thinks it is cool? words evolve. If I couldn’t walk I would think it is lame, and being able to walk, I don’t look down on people who can’t, while accepting it isn’t fortunate for anything or anyone to ‘be lame’.

                                                    2. 5

                                                      I thought lobsters was above just typing up gut reactions. This thread would be more informative if they stated their opinion in a constructive way and kept the gut reactions for reddit or twitter.

                                                      1. 1

                                                        Mm, fair point. It was just worrying to see the other end of the spectrum being aggressively stamped out, but maybe it’s a healthy immune response.

                                                      2. 0

                                                        I wonder which version of GPL would have been appropriate in this situation?

                                                        It’s not clear that any of them would have been helpful – the GPL v3 would not have functioned any differently than the previously-used Apache license wrt code that’s only deployed on Amazon’s servers, and the AGPL did nothing to stop Amazon from free-riding on, and using their economies of scale to attack the funding of, MongoDB – they simply went to considerable effort to keep their modifications outside the core binary, so that they’d meet the letter, but not the spirit, of the AGPL.

                                                        1. 1

                                                          That’s why I’m thinking some version of Parity will be the safest, but maybe rarest, of copyleft licenses.

                                                      3. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Pruning really snippy meta thread.]

                                                        1. [Comment removed by moderator pushcx: Pruning really snippy meta thread.]