Reconsider

This is a follow up to my previous post on Fizzy by 37signals going "open source." Last year, 37signals put out a great podcast titled "Disagree and Commit." I agree with their signal:

"Consensus is cozy, but broad agreement is not our aim. The right decision is. Which is why we take the time to think, debate, persuade, listen and reconsider and then, someone, decides. If you disagree, that's fine, but once the decision is made, it's time to commit and support it completely."

I've debated the meaning of "open source." I actually largely agree with DHH's stance that the words "open" and "source" in close proximity aren't owned by the OSI — and I'd even argue that the majority don't even know who the OSI is! So who cares, right?

But I've also reconsidered. There's so much vitriol in conversation around these 2 words, namely when they're used by a business that is trying to stick with the 'spirit of open source,' yet at the same time, build a sustainable business.

You can spend your time arguing definitions all day, but I don't think it'll ever go anywhere productive. I used to, and I spent considerable time and energy arguing. But I've reconsidered, and no longer.

Instead, I was convinced of another way. I like to think it's The Way, but that's proving hard to convince others of, so perhaps it's not The Way, but just Another Way. Only time will tell.

That Way is "fair source," as I covered in my previous post, and many, many other posts. When I originally opened up Keygen's source code under the ELv2 license, I did so under the guise of "open source." I did that to communicate clearly, but I wasn't actually communicating clearly at all — at least not to everybody.

Worse, to some, I seemed to be lying.

Therein lies the problem.

I even thought "all publicly is good publicity, right?" But that train of thought lacks integrity, and so, I reconsidered, and I went with "source-available" even though it's meaningless. I don't like miscommunication, and ambiguity is even worse, so I tried to fix that.

But there was no solution that would allow me to communicate clearly to my market that Keygen was almost permissive open source without actually using the words "open" and "source" next to each other. I think I ended up landing on "open, source-available licensing."

But again, this still miscommunicates to some.

Some people still said I was lying, yet I was actually giving away more software than the startups they worshipped under the Holy AGPL.

Then I stumbled upon what Sentry was doing with fair source, and I interjected myself there. I wanted to be included in that. Originally, I argued against one of the differentiating characteristics of fair source, and that is delayed Open Source publication (DOSP).

Essentially, DOSP puts a timer on a proprietary license: after a set period of time, the code "changes" to a true Open Source™ license. It ensures that if the author disappears, stops maintaining the software, or even goes in a bad direction, the community can pick up the pieces from the last, albeit out of date, OSS publication.

(But it's worth noting that this "timer" is a sort of rolling timer. Each commit, each release, has its own "timer" from the date of occurrence. Thus given a 'properly maintained' product, would mean the master branch would never be Open Source™ proper. This provides the author with an advantage even if a competitor did pop up.)

Accepting DOSP was scary. There was a reason I went with ELv2 after all, and not the ALv2 or even the MIT! I wanted to build a sustainable business, and historically, permissive COSS has by and large failed, almost always resulting in a rug-pull to stop the inevitable bleed.

But Chad and David from Sentry convinced me of DOSP, and I saw how it could be beneficial to my users, and most of all my customers, in the event that Keygen ever failed. Lots of people make promises pinky-swears of longevity, very few back it up.

I think fair source, with DOSP, can back it up. It does back it up.

And so I reconsidered.

I wrote a new license that blended FSL and ELv2 so that it worked for my business model. I wanted to uphold the spirit of open source, which is founded on the promise of longevity — with or without the author — and so I wanted to codify that promise.

Not a promise of ongoing stewardship from the author, but a promise of irrevocable continuity beyond them.

And so I relicensed Keygen to undergo DOSP. I adopted fair source.

I think that 37signals falls in that camp of wanting to uphold the spirit of open source, too. But they also, evidently, don't care about the OSI's definition of those 2 words. I get it. But also, I don't get it —

They already have a promise of longevity. Why not codify it?

Perhaps they're not quite at Reconsider, or maybe they're past it. I hope they aren't and they do debate, persuade, listen, and reconsider.

This is a call to reconsider.