Is it me or are many freemium applications masquerading as opensource applications?
-
My creds: Been in open source for 25 years, one of the earlier users of Ubuntu when it launched in Fourways, South Africa (remember those sleeved CDs they used to send for installation media) though I hardcore rep Debian, have deployed and supported countless tools across 3 continents, the most memorable being Mambo which later became Joomla, though I switched to Drupal.
I think the label has been hijacked by many corporations to front an ethical FOSS front but in reality release a hobbled version of their software that is inherently open source at the core, but, has a commercial hard gate around certain things, like scalability/performance/high availability, authentication and security (big yikes here), integrations, usability, reporting and analytics etc... you get where I am going with this. I respect that people have to do what they have to do to eat and grow, but there is blatant misrepresentation happening and it needs to be called out. Or maybe I am wrong here?
I've never seen a freemium getting mislabeled. Can you give an example?
-
My creds: Been in open source for 25 years, one of the earlier users of Ubuntu when it launched in Fourways, South Africa (remember those sleeved CDs they used to send for installation media) though I hardcore rep Debian, have deployed and supported countless tools across 3 continents, the most memorable being Mambo which later became Joomla, though I switched to Drupal.
I think the label has been hijacked by many corporations to front an ethical FOSS front but in reality release a hobbled version of their software that is inherently open source at the core, but, has a commercial hard gate around certain things, like scalability/performance/high availability, authentication and security (big yikes here), integrations, usability, reporting and analytics etc... you get where I am going with this. I respect that people have to do what they have to do to eat and grow, but there is blatant misrepresentation happening and it needs to be called out. Or maybe I am wrong here?
The ones I know of are not really masquerading, but rather, funding themselves and/or directly related services (often hosting) via convenient ways.
- Conversations.im (XMPP/Jabber client) is $8 on Google Play, free on F-Droid and is FOSS. Dev runs their own instance.
- OsmAnd+ costs money on Google Play, is free on F-Droid, provides hosting of gigabytes of map data.
- Beeper (bridges from popular chats to Matrix) costs money (subscription I believe), but can be set up on one's own (I run two bridges on my chat server).
What I do dislike is companies overusing "Open" or "Free" in their own or their product names, with no implication of Free or Open Source software. Similar to slapping "engineer" on non-engineering roles or "manager" on non-managerial ones.
-
My creds: Been in open source for 25 years, one of the earlier users of Ubuntu when it launched in Fourways, South Africa (remember those sleeved CDs they used to send for installation media) though I hardcore rep Debian, have deployed and supported countless tools across 3 continents, the most memorable being Mambo which later became Joomla, though I switched to Drupal.
I think the label has been hijacked by many corporations to front an ethical FOSS front but in reality release a hobbled version of their software that is inherently open source at the core, but, has a commercial hard gate around certain things, like scalability/performance/high availability, authentication and security (big yikes here), integrations, usability, reporting and analytics etc... you get where I am going with this. I respect that people have to do what they have to do to eat and grow, but there is blatant misrepresentation happening and it needs to be called out. Or maybe I am wrong here?
wrote last edited by [email protected]The term for this is openwashing. Seems like it's been ramping up for a while. Any software or tech vendors know that open(source) is an attractive point, especially to devs. But they don't want to deal with the realities of it.
Most famous example in recent times is OpenAI, which has that name but not much else.
-
I've never seen a freemium getting mislabeled. Can you give an example?
N8N. Claims to be open source. After a bit of an outcry, call their code availability 'Faircode' now. It's openwashing
-
I've never seen a freemium getting mislabeled. Can you give an example?
Here's one, InfluxDB (a time series database) advertises itself Open Source, but that's only true for their Core platform, and many common features of a DB (high availability, read replicas, etc) are behind the Enterprise offering. Even if you are going to self host, you have to pay and agree to their terms.
I get having to pay for hosting and support, but it seems like they are intentionally neutering the core version to be able to push their paid business model, while benefiting from the testing and contributions from the community on the core model.
-
My creds: Been in open source for 25 years, one of the earlier users of Ubuntu when it launched in Fourways, South Africa (remember those sleeved CDs they used to send for installation media) though I hardcore rep Debian, have deployed and supported countless tools across 3 continents, the most memorable being Mambo which later became Joomla, though I switched to Drupal.
I think the label has been hijacked by many corporations to front an ethical FOSS front but in reality release a hobbled version of their software that is inherently open source at the core, but, has a commercial hard gate around certain things, like scalability/performance/high availability, authentication and security (big yikes here), integrations, usability, reporting and analytics etc... you get where I am going with this. I respect that people have to do what they have to do to eat and grow, but there is blatant misrepresentation happening and it needs to be called out. Or maybe I am wrong here?
Been in open source for 25 years
have deployed and supported countless tools across 3 continent
My creds
What does this even mean? You used free software made by others to your benefit or profit and that's your "credentials"?
What in the actual fuck. How about you start a project without expecting anything and be the change you want to see?
No one else needs to run by your "label", people who are knowledgeable know people need to earn to eat and have to make a livelihood.
No ones stopping you from using the base opensource code to extend it to your liking.
This is just open-source entitlelism. Nobody owes you shit.
-
Here's one, InfluxDB (a time series database) advertises itself Open Source, but that's only true for their Core platform, and many common features of a DB (high availability, read replicas, etc) are behind the Enterprise offering. Even if you are going to self host, you have to pay and agree to their terms.
I get having to pay for hosting and support, but it seems like they are intentionally neutering the core version to be able to push their paid business model, while benefiting from the testing and contributions from the community on the core model.
Wow, this is indeed shitty..
-
My creds: Been in open source for 25 years, one of the earlier users of Ubuntu when it launched in Fourways, South Africa (remember those sleeved CDs they used to send for installation media) though I hardcore rep Debian, have deployed and supported countless tools across 3 continents, the most memorable being Mambo which later became Joomla, though I switched to Drupal.
I think the label has been hijacked by many corporations to front an ethical FOSS front but in reality release a hobbled version of their software that is inherently open source at the core, but, has a commercial hard gate around certain things, like scalability/performance/high availability, authentication and security (big yikes here), integrations, usability, reporting and analytics etc... you get where I am going with this. I respect that people have to do what they have to do to eat and grow, but there is blatant misrepresentation happening and it needs to be called out. Or maybe I am wrong here?
RMS warned of this a bit over 20 years ago. This is why you should get Free and Open source software and not Open Source Software. Preferably with a GPL licence which allows you to download, run, read the code, modify it and share it. Open source can mean you only have the right to read the code and signal to the dev code you've saw that could have been better or errors you saw.
-
I've never seen a freemium getting mislabeled. Can you give an example?
@pastermil @nicgentile
cal.com - supposedly AGPL core with proprietary "enterprise" code in specific directories, but the open source doesn't even build without the enterprise code. -
Personally I make a distinction between open source and free (as in freedom) software. Free software is open source but open source software isn't necessarily free.
I can check and validate the open source software that these fremium devs provide but it isn't free. The premium part they offer is neither open source nor free.
This is contrary to OSS definitions. Personally, I'm not a fan of the strict position OSS takes with things like SSPLv1, but I'm the vocal minority.
Free software and open source are the same thing in the accepted definition. A good example of where this is tough is something like MongoDB, where it's free to run and source available, but the license doesn't allow you to resale it as a service. This was done to stop companies like Azure and AWS from making millions without supporting development, while not restricting most business use.
By OSS standards, Mongo is not free, and is not open source.
-
Been in open source for 25 years
have deployed and supported countless tools across 3 continent
My creds
What does this even mean? You used free software made by others to your benefit or profit and that's your "credentials"?
What in the actual fuck. How about you start a project without expecting anything and be the change you want to see?
No one else needs to run by your "label", people who are knowledgeable know people need to earn to eat and have to make a livelihood.
No ones stopping you from using the base opensource code to extend it to your liking.
This is just open-source entitlelism. Nobody owes you shit.
"supported", dictionaries are pretty cheap you know...
though how exactly op has, i have no idea. they did not specify.
-
My creds: Been in open source for 25 years, one of the earlier users of Ubuntu when it launched in Fourways, South Africa (remember those sleeved CDs they used to send for installation media) though I hardcore rep Debian, have deployed and supported countless tools across 3 continents, the most memorable being Mambo which later became Joomla, though I switched to Drupal.
I think the label has been hijacked by many corporations to front an ethical FOSS front but in reality release a hobbled version of their software that is inherently open source at the core, but, has a commercial hard gate around certain things, like scalability/performance/high availability, authentication and security (big yikes here), integrations, usability, reporting and analytics etc... you get where I am going with this. I respect that people have to do what they have to do to eat and grow, but there is blatant misrepresentation happening and it needs to be called out. Or maybe I am wrong here?
Tons of note taking apps are like this. I'm fine with premium for sync but putting restrictions over how many tags you can use and such cheap practices is so irritating. Especially with how saturated this market is there is not a single good one that ticks everything. Logsec was close but it's in development hell for a while.
-
@pastermil @nicgentile
cal.com - supposedly AGPL core with proprietary "enterprise" code in specific directories, but the open source doesn't even build without the enterprise code.I was working on cal.com two days ago. I saw this.
-
This is contrary to OSS definitions. Personally, I'm not a fan of the strict position OSS takes with things like SSPLv1, but I'm the vocal minority.
Free software and open source are the same thing in the accepted definition. A good example of where this is tough is something like MongoDB, where it's free to run and source available, but the license doesn't allow you to resale it as a service. This was done to stop companies like Azure and AWS from making millions without supporting development, while not restricting most business use.
By OSS standards, Mongo is not free, and is not open source.
This is contrary to OSS definitions.
Yes, that's why I added 'personally'.
-
N8N. Claims to be open source. After a bit of an outcry, call their code availability 'Faircode' now. It's openwashing
Yeah, it is. But I think they've dialled it down quite a bit. Or do you still have som examples where they claim to be open source? It's mostly users misunderstanding what OSS is.
-
@pastermil @nicgentile
cal.com - supposedly AGPL core with proprietary "enterprise" code in specific directories, but the open source doesn't even build without the enterprise code.Is there a ticket/issue for this already?
-
Been in open source for 25 years
have deployed and supported countless tools across 3 continent
My creds
What does this even mean? You used free software made by others to your benefit or profit and that's your "credentials"?
What in the actual fuck. How about you start a project without expecting anything and be the change you want to see?
No one else needs to run by your "label", people who are knowledgeable know people need to earn to eat and have to make a livelihood.
No ones stopping you from using the base opensource code to extend it to your liking.
This is just open-source entitlelism. Nobody owes you shit.
Oh no, someone used open source software for their own purposes, free of any monetary obligations or restrictions! Wait, that's the whole fucking point.
-
RMS warned of this a bit over 20 years ago. This is why you should get Free and Open source software and not Open Source Software. Preferably with a GPL licence which allows you to download, run, read the code, modify it and share it. Open source can mean you only have the right to read the code and signal to the dev code you've saw that could have been better or errors you saw.
Cough cough 40 cough cough
