From <https://redmonk.com/jgovernor/2024/09/13/open-source-foundations-considered-helpful/>:

The “rug pull” here refers to companies that have used open source
as a distribution mechanism, building a community and user base,
before changing the license to be restricted, rather than truly
open source.

A.k.a. “bait and switch”.

Lawrence D'Oliveiro:

> From <https://redmonk.com/jgovernor/2024/09/13/open-source-foundations-considered-helpful/>:
>
> The Уrug pullФ here refers to companies that have used open source
> as a distribution mechanism, building a community and user base,
> before changing the license to be restricted, rather than truly
> open source.

Isn't it exactly what GNU GPL provides against?

--
() ascii ribbon campaign -- against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org -- against proprietary attachments

In comp.misc, Anton Shepelev <anton.txt@gmail.moc> wrote:
> Lawrence D'Oliveiro:
> > From <https://redmonk.com/jgovernor/2024/09/13/open-source-foundations-considered-helpful/>:
> >
> > The "rug pull" here refers to companies that have used open source
> > as a distribution mechanism, building a community and user base,
> > before changing the license to be restricted, rather than truly
> > open source.
> Isn't it exactly what GNU GPL provides against?

Lots of licenses prevent this: sort-of.

The code up until the license change remains available under the
previous license, but the companies keep developing it and newer code is
not free and older code is not supported.

This is a problem if you rely on using supported products.

But maybe someone else takes the unencumbered version and develops that.
Then you get a fork that may no longer be compatible, an issue if you
use code from a third party to interact with it.

As an example, see Elasticsearch changing their license, AWS forking it
to Opensearch, and the two code bases diverging, while various libraries
kept up with Elastic.

Other variations are possible. Open Source doesn't scale so well when
the code base is bigger than a single human can fully understand. Forks
become the product of some other business or go stale.

Or you get Open Source like Android. Go ahead, compile it yourself. Good
luck using that -- without even modifying it -- as a drop in replacement
on your phone.

A few, very rare, projects do succeed despite breaking the "single human"
barrier. Also a few, very rare, people win the lottery.

Elijah
------
fucking Android

Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:

> Open Source doesn't scale so well when
> the code base is bigger than a single human can fully understand.

Linux with all its tools must be pretty stale then.

Schlomo Goldberg <schlomo.goldberg@mailinator.com> wrote:
>Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> writes:
>
>> Open Source doesn't scale so well when
>> the code base is bigger than a single human can fully understand.
>
>Linux with all its tools must be pretty stale then.

Quite the opposite. GNU/Linux is changing faster than any one human being
can keep up with, that's where the scaling problems come in.

I sure wish it were more stale.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
> From <https://redmonk.com/jgovernor/2024/09/13/open-source-foundations-considered-helpful/>:
<snip>
> A.k.a. “bait and switch”.

Quote from the article.
>But on balance yes – Open source foundations considered helpful.

and I will finish it:
"... to the companies who own the foundation."

The Linux Foundation is owned by large corporations, which
is listed at the end of the article.

The LF now exists to only help Large Companies, its purpose
is to provide free labor to those companies.

For an example, look at OpenSSH, every company uses it, yet
IBM for one does not donate to it. Instead, IBM happily
bundles OpenSSH with AIX and RHEL. There are plenty of
examples of projects were the authors are struggling to
meet their expenses. The LF is no where in sight for them,
instead most of their donations go to admin type people
and now to some AI spin-off. Hardly any goes into Linux.

If the LF cared for the users of Linux, they would force
Companies like Nvidia to open-up their firmware, preventing
Linux from using Nvidia GPUs like they do with ZFS.

Instead, Nvidia being a nice big contributor, can do what
they want. Thus preventing its full use on many system
that contain their GPU.

--
[t]csh(1) - "An elegant shell, for a more... civilized age."
- Paraphrasing Star Wars

On Sun, 3 Nov 2024, John McCue wrote:

> Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:
>> From <https://redmonk.com/jgovernor/2024/09/13/open-source-foundations-considered-helpful/>:
> <snip>
>> A.k.a. “bait and switch”.
>
> Quote from the article.
>> But on balance yes – Open source foundations considered helpful.
>
> and I will finish it:
> "... to the companies who own the foundation."
>
> The Linux Foundation is owned by large corporations, which
> is listed at the end of the article.
>
> The LF now exists to only help Large Companies, its purpose
> is to provide free labor to those companies.
>
> For an example, look at OpenSSH, every company uses it, yet
> IBM for one does not donate to it. Instead, IBM happily
> bundles OpenSSH with AIX and RHEL. There are plenty of
> examples of projects were the authors are struggling to
> meet their expenses. The LF is no where in sight for them,
> instead most of their donations go to admin type people
> and now to some AI spin-off. Hardly any goes into Linux.
>
> If the LF cared for the users of Linux, they would force
> Companies like Nvidia to open-up their firmware, preventing
> Linux from using Nvidia GPUs like they do with ZFS.
>
> Instead, Nvidia being a nice big contributor, can do what
> they want. Thus preventing its full use on many system
> that contain their GPU.

This mirrors my experience of how it was to try to work with the LF.
Horrible organization filled at the top with middle-managers who only want
to stuff their CV:s.