written on Sunday, November 19, 2023

Sentry relicensed under a new license, called the Functional Source License (FSL). It's not an Open Source license by the OSI definition, but it comes with an irrevocable grant: after two years it turns into an Apache 2.0 licensed artifact (or MIT for the alternative form). It's the response to a lot of feedback we have received about our previous use of the BUSL. You can read all about the switch to FSL in the Announcement Blog Post. (You can also find my original thoughts on the use of the BUSL here.)

When I started Open Source development, there was a very famous essay by Eric S. Raymond called “The Cathedral and the Bazaar”. It describes the bazaar style development model that Linux propagated at the time. Patches were passed around freely on a mailing list, source was always available even between releases. This is how Raymond described the two development models:

I believed that the most important software (operating systems and really large tools like the Emacs programming editor) needed to be built like cathedrals, carefully crafted by individual wizards or small bands of mages working in splendid isolation, with no beta to be released before its time.

Linus Torvalds's style of development—release early and often, delegate everything you can, be open to the point of promiscuity—came as a surprise. No quiet, reverent cathedral-building here—rather, the Linux community seemed to resemble a great babbling bazaar of differing agendas and approaches (aptly symbolized by the Linux archive sites, who'd take submissions from anyone) out of which a coherent and stable system could seemingly emerge only by a succession of miracles.

—Eric Steven Raymond, The Cathedral and the Bazaar.

Today the Cathedral approach in Open Source is very uncommon. The Linux project has not only promoted building in the open, Linus himself has doubled down on that development model by creating git. Today we build in the open. Open Source projects are on GitHub, everything happens there. That's the model I know, it's the model all my Open Source projects use, it's the model Sentry uses. We build in the open.

There is a second change that gradually happened over the last 20 years: SaaS. Software licenses really regulate the distribution of source code and binaries, but they don't have a lever over what happens with the software once you have it in your hands. That causes a new challenge which is commonly described as the Free-rider problem in economics as an example of a market failure:

In the social sciences, the free-rider problem is a type of market failure that occurs when those who benefit from resources, public goods and common pool resources do not pay for them or under-pay. Examples of such goods are public roads or public libraries or services or other goods of a communal nature.

Open Source software is such a common good. Historically, the licensing focus was on redistribution. There were not a lot of possibilities for others to take it and monetize it. With the advent of services, the situation has changed. Now anyone can take an Open Source project and host it as a service and there is an appetite to pay for such services. There is only one Open Source license that tried to address this part, and that's the AGPL which comes with its own challenges. This risk disincentives further Open Source development of projects which could be abused this way.

If you were to follow the Cathedral development model and you only release software once every two years to the world under an OSI license, that would technically be Open Source software. But as a user you would need to wait for two years and if someone were to change their mind, you have no legal leverage to actually receive that code.

The FSL improves on this for the ones that subscribe to the idea of the Bazaar development model: it's out there in the open, but it has an exclusivity period for the original authors to enable them to commercialize it for a limited but rolling period of two years. You also do not need to take our word for it, the license already gives you the right, you just need to wait. After that waiting period, it turns into a 100% OSI approved licensed artifact. It also enables contributions by the community for the latest version and not old source code.

Personally I am obviously a strong advocate for that model. I think it's incredibly close to what Open Source is all about, with some modest protections. The FSL permits limitless forking after a two-year exclusivity period, and also allows unrestricted internal use of the product and contributions long before that. For instance, if regulatory constraints prevent using the SaaS version of a product like Sentry, self-hosting is a viable and legal alternative under the FSL. This license also ensures the availability of the product in any circumstance and specifically mentions the use of FSL-licensed products alongside software development services.

The FSL ensures that software can outlast the commercial entity that enables its development. It guarantees that the software will always stay functional and available. There cannot be a limbo where the rights holder prevents the flourishing of a fork out of lack of interest or fear.

To me the FSL's unique characteristics raise questions about its nature. Its intent, language, and practical impact arguably make it more robust and exciting than any other source-available license today. The two-year exclusivity period is ambitious. But one thing is clear: until its expiration, the license does not qualify as Open Source. While I recognize the sensitivity around the term “Open Source”, I assert that the FSL's approach is more closely aligned with Open Source ideals than mere source availability. I consider it an “Eventually Open Source” license, though perhaps a more fitting term needs to be found.

I see how incredibly strong many feel about the BUSL and now the FSL. In the mind of many folks, this license is a betrayal of the Open Source spirit. I understand the historic context and efforts that went into making Open Source and Free Software what it is today. We're all standing of the shoulders of the giants that created those licenses and defended them in courts. But take this parting thought: we regarded the Cathedral development model as both Free Software and Open Source. In that model in between releases only selected people had access and control to the source. Where forks were limited to starting with the public tarballs of some software that only appeared at irregular intervals. Maybe if one considers that development model, the FSL doesn't look quite as foreign and restrictive.

This entry was tagged licensing, opensource and thoughts