I think that's perfectly fair. The community is quick to put whoever builds commercial OSS software on a cross the moment they change their license to ensure they still have a competitive advantage. Instead, we should encourage commercial OSS companies. COSS companiesare one of the only venues for creating high-quality OSS projects that you can self-host.
> I think that's perfectly fair. The community is quick to put whoever builds commercial OSS software on a cross the moment they change their license to ensure they still have a competitive advantage. Instead, we should encourage commercial OSS companies.
Complete agreement there. I'd like to laud NetBird for using AGPL rather than one of the recent VC-fueled proprietary-with-source-available licenses.
> I personally think the definition of open-source is problematic (and clearly biased by the lobbies of hyperscalers).
Open Source has existed since before "hyperscaler" was a concept that existed, and before Software as a Service was a going concern. Its definition has not in any way been affected by the lobby of an industry that didn't exist when it was defined.
One rationale for not changing the definition of Open Source is an issue of Schelling points / focal points ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) ). Right now, we have a common definition of Open Source; if everyone could put their pet restriction in ("no military", "no SaaS", "no AI", "no nuclear power"), we'd end up with a hundred variants and no ability to collaborate and share code across projects.
> Why aren't n8n or MongoDB considered open-source?
In the case of MongoDB, it's because the SSPL requires that all the software used to offer the network service is also licensed under the SSPL. That prevents it from being used to write Free Software by mixing free programs and libraries that use a different license, even if they are free.
So, for example, if your network service supports managing MongoDB instances, and it includes Caddy or Nginx, then you're not complying with the license, as Caddy and Nginx aren't released under the SSPL and you cannot relicense them.
> Why does requesting that others not sell your product make the project not open-source?
Because requesting them to not do that makes your program proprietary, and thus non-free by definition.
The OSI definition doesn't allow that kind of restriction, mainly because it's all about keeping software as free and open as possible.
But the thing is, commercial open source companies play a huge role in making great open source tools, especially ones you can self-host. Without them, a lot of the software we rely on wouldn't even exist. People often push back when these companies change their licenses, but they forget the reality. Big cloud providers can make tons of money off open source projects without giving anything back. That's a tough spot for the folks.
I'm sure that in the nearest future we will have some COSS licenses :) Well, as an open source contributor I hope so
I'll put it rather bluntly: present-day open source is largely free labor for SaaS companies.
SaaS, meanwhile, is the least open and least free model of software distribution, significantly less open or free (as in freedom) than closed-source commercial software you run yourself. This model, SaaS, is powered from the ground up by open source, and most SaaS gives little or nothing back. Some SaaS is not much more than a management and UI layer built around pre-existing open source standards and code.
Something is very wrong if open source exists largely to enable the least free model of software distribution. Open source as currently conceptualized is stuck in the pre-SaaS eras of the 1980s and 1990s and refuses to adapt to what "free" and "open" mean in the new landscape.
It doesn't help that the OSI is fully captured by companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta with a vested interest in promoting the SaaS and cloud-first model. If local-first ever gained traction it would be a threat to not just their SaaS products but their incredibly lucrative cloud businesses.
> The community is quick to put whoever builds commercial OSS software on a cross the moment they change their license to ensure they still have a competitive advantage.
Yes, people object to pulling a bait and switch by taking something that was open source and then making it not open source.
> Instead, we should encourage commercial OSS companies. COSS companiesare one of the only venues for creating high-quality OSS projects that you can self-host.
We do encourage that. We also discourage commercial fake-OSS companies.
Part of the point of Open Source is that the software isn't completely tied to a single company. If software is under one of those more restrictive licenses and the company goes under, the software is dead. If software under an open source license is developed by a company that goes under, one or even many other companies can continue working on it. This also applies while the company is alive, too; as you note, commercial companies developing open source software is a good thing, and preventing parallel development or forks is bad for the ecosystem.
Honestly I think it's fair. Really the only people affected by this change are people creating proprietary forks, everyone else benefits from this change.
I just wish there was a way to ensure that the company itself doesn't do a proprietary fork.
Simple. Don't have contribution agreements. Contributors maintain their copyright so as they can prevent relicensing. Mind, FSF requires copyright for their submissions (I believe), but they're, arguably, a "good actor" in this space.
But, if the code base becomes a patchwork of contributors, it can become difficult to relicense.
When given the choice, there are very few cases where I don't pick the open source product. The peace of mind it won't be shutdown on you, the confidence the company has in their code quality, or the option to ignore migrations and stay on previous versions is worth way more than featureset deltas.
Licensing talk is confusing to someone not steeped in it. I talked to Claude about it 1-2 weeks ago when it was first announced and it was framed as a reinforcement of FOSS ideals.
I actually made the jump from tailscale -> netbird last month. Definitely more work and learning, but much more aligned w/ my perspective of self-hosting and open-source software. (Yes I thought about headscale but the YouTube reviews of netbird won me over).
In order to safeguard the long-term innovation, sustainability, and collaborative spirit of NetBird, we are switching to the AGPLv3 license - ensuring it remains a powerful, community-driven resource for decades to come.
Looks like AGPL is a new norm? Redis switched to AGPL too. SSPL is also common on the server side. Curious of how you view AGPL vs. SSPL and choose the former.
SSPL is appealing for business but it is not open source. That is a deal breaker for us. We want to remain open source under a license that is recognized as open source.
They're switching because they saw the failure of doing the source-available rugpull and causing other, sometimes even more successful, forks to show up, like Redis and Valkey. SSPL is not open source so it's not something I'd ever choose.
>The BSD-3 license, under which NetBird has operated until now, is a permissive license. It was instrumental in our early growth, offering maximum flexibility and encouraging wide adoption. However, this permissiveness also presents a significant long-term challenge with an imbalance where the value created by a community can be captured and privatized, ultimately undermining the sustainability of the open-source project itself. Well, AGPLv3 addresses this imbalance.
How is this logic not literally Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?
>How is this logic not literally Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?
It is exactly that. We need more free software which is actually free for everyone and every use case in all the senses of free. We don't need more "free software" except there are owners who get to control who uses it, how they use it, and how they can make money with it.
There is SO MUCH WASTE that could be eliminated by a few developers getting paid decent salaries to put their work into the public domain (by this I mean BSD style very permissive licenses).
Imagine a grant giving organization that companies were encouraged to give a hundredth of a percent of their revenue to which focused on paying full time developers to build and maintain fully featured tools which are the most useful to society as a whole.
That's a weird take. If another $company wants to continue development with BSD-3 license, they can do so starting today and nothing of value would be lost.
The change is NetBird company saying, the improvements from now on are AGPLv3 licensed, but that doesnt stop from anyone to fork today and continue with BSD-3 license.
[+] [-] moomin|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] echelon|7 months ago|reply
AGPL will stop Amazon. It won't stop WP Engine.
There needs to be a license that enables your customers to use you freely, but not your competitors from reselling your hard work.
[+] [-] resiros|7 months ago|reply
I personally think the definition of open-source is problematic (and clearly biased by the lobbies of hyperscalers). Why aren't n8n or MongoDB considered open-source? (https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/blob/master/LICENSE.md, https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/community-edition) Why does requesting that others not sell your product make the project not open-source?
[+] [-] JoshTriplett|7 months ago|reply
Complete agreement there. I'd like to laud NetBird for using AGPL rather than one of the recent VC-fueled proprietary-with-source-available licenses.
> I personally think the definition of open-source is problematic (and clearly biased by the lobbies of hyperscalers).
Open Source has existed since before "hyperscaler" was a concept that existed, and before Software as a Service was a going concern. Its definition has not in any way been affected by the lobby of an industry that didn't exist when it was defined.
One rationale for not changing the definition of Open Source is an issue of Schelling points / focal points ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focal_point_(game_theory) ). Right now, we have a common definition of Open Source; if everyone could put their pet restriction in ("no military", "no SaaS", "no AI", "no nuclear power"), we'd end up with a hundred variants and no ability to collaborate and share code across projects.
[+] [-] gr4vityWall|7 months ago|reply
In the case of MongoDB, it's because the SSPL requires that all the software used to offer the network service is also licensed under the SSPL. That prevents it from being used to write Free Software by mixing free programs and libraries that use a different license, even if they are free.
So, for example, if your network service supports managing MongoDB instances, and it includes Caddy or Nginx, then you're not complying with the license, as Caddy and Nginx aren't released under the SSPL and you cannot relicense them.
> Why does requesting that others not sell your product make the project not open-source?
Because requesting them to not do that makes your program proprietary, and thus non-free by definition.
[+] [-] braginini|7 months ago|reply
But the thing is, commercial open source companies play a huge role in making great open source tools, especially ones you can self-host. Without them, a lot of the software we rely on wouldn't even exist. People often push back when these companies change their licenses, but they forget the reality. Big cloud providers can make tons of money off open source projects without giving anything back. That's a tough spot for the folks.
I'm sure that in the nearest future we will have some COSS licenses :) Well, as an open source contributor I hope so
[+] [-] api|7 months ago|reply
SaaS, meanwhile, is the least open and least free model of software distribution, significantly less open or free (as in freedom) than closed-source commercial software you run yourself. This model, SaaS, is powered from the ground up by open source, and most SaaS gives little or nothing back. Some SaaS is not much more than a management and UI layer built around pre-existing open source standards and code.
Something is very wrong if open source exists largely to enable the least free model of software distribution. Open source as currently conceptualized is stuck in the pre-SaaS eras of the 1980s and 1990s and refuses to adapt to what "free" and "open" mean in the new landscape.
It doesn't help that the OSI is fully captured by companies like Google, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta with a vested interest in promoting the SaaS and cloud-first model. If local-first ever gained traction it would be a threat to not just their SaaS products but their incredibly lucrative cloud businesses.
[+] [-] yjftsjthsd-h|7 months ago|reply
Yes, people object to pulling a bait and switch by taking something that was open source and then making it not open source.
> Instead, we should encourage commercial OSS companies. COSS companiesare one of the only venues for creating high-quality OSS projects that you can self-host.
We do encourage that. We also discourage commercial fake-OSS companies.
> I personally think the definition of open-source is problematic (and clearly biased by the lobbies of hyperscalers). Why aren't n8n or MongoDB considered open-source? (https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/blob/master/LICENSE.md, https://www.mongodb.com/legal/licensing/community-edition) Why does requesting that others not sell your product make the project not open-source?
Part of the point of Open Source is that the software isn't completely tied to a single company. If software is under one of those more restrictive licenses and the company goes under, the software is dead. If software under an open source license is developed by a company that goes under, one or even many other companies can continue working on it. This also applies while the company is alive, too; as you note, commercial companies developing open source software is a good thing, and preventing parallel development or forks is bad for the ecosystem.
[+] [-] ognarb|7 months ago|reply
I just wish there was a way to ensure that the company itself doesn't do a proprietary fork.
[+] [-] whartung|7 months ago|reply
But, if the code base becomes a patchwork of contributors, it can become difficult to relicense.
[+] [-] sneak|7 months ago|reply
https://sneak.berlin/20250720/the-agpl-is-nonfree/
Running a SaaS with in-house modifications is a protected use case for free software. The AGPL is a EULA masquerading as a license.
[+] [-] OsrsNeedsf2P|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] mac-attack|7 months ago|reply
I actually made the jump from tailscale -> netbird last month. Definitely more work and learning, but much more aligned w/ my perspective of self-hosting and open-source software. (Yes I thought about headscale but the YouTube reviews of netbird won me over).
[+] [-] braginini|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] braginini|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] hardwaresofton|7 months ago|reply
https://vadosware.io/post/the-future-of-free-and-open-source...
[+] [-] grandfugue|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] braginini|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] satvikpendem|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] xxpor|7 months ago|reply
How is this logic not literally Embrace, Extend, Extinguish?
[+] [-] tokai|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] colechristensen|7 months ago|reply
It is exactly that. We need more free software which is actually free for everyone and every use case in all the senses of free. We don't need more "free software" except there are owners who get to control who uses it, how they use it, and how they can make money with it.
There is SO MUCH WASTE that could be eliminated by a few developers getting paid decent salaries to put their work into the public domain (by this I mean BSD style very permissive licenses).
Imagine a grant giving organization that companies were encouraged to give a hundredth of a percent of their revenue to which focused on paying full time developers to build and maintain fully featured tools which are the most useful to society as a whole.
[+] [-] seanclayton|7 months ago|reply
[+] [-] bitpush|7 months ago|reply
The change is NetBird company saying, the improvements from now on are AGPLv3 licensed, but that doesnt stop from anyone to fork today and continue with BSD-3 license.