commit: 43d380fb49ee53e7d0f466bc4b886620e533054c
parent 3f08eededc3b8556aa545a6a693514f9efd8639b
Author: Drew DeVault <sir@cmpwn.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2021 09:41:25 +0100
Apollo Federation
Diffstat:
1 file changed, 177 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/content/blog/Apollo-federation-2-gaslighting.md b/content/blog/Apollo-federation-2-gaslighting.md
@@ -0,0 +1,177 @@
+---
+title: Breaking down Apollo Federation's anti-FOSS corporate gaslighting
+date: 2021-11-05
+---
+
+Gather around, my friends, for there is another company which thinks we are
+stupid and we enjoy having our faces spat in. [Apollo Federation][0][^1] has
+announced that they will switch to a non-free license. Let's find out just how
+much the Elastic license really is going to "protect the community" like they
+want you to believe.
+
+[0]: https://www.apollographql.com/blog/announcement/moving-apollo-federation-2-to-the-elastic-license-v2/
+
+[^1]: For those unaware, Apollo Federation is a means of combining many
+GraphQL[^2] microservices into one GraphQL API.
+[^2]: For those unaware, GraphQL is a standardized query language largely used
+to replace REST for service APIs. SourceHut uses GraphQL.
+
+Let's start by asking ourselves, objectively, what practical changes can we
+expect from a switch from the [MIT license][MIT] to the [Elastic
+License][elastic]? Both licenses are pretty short, so I recommend quickly
+reading them yourself before we move on.
+
+[MIT]: https://mit-license.org
+[elastic]: https://www.elastic.co/licensing/elastic-license
+
+I'll summarize the difference between these licenses. First, the Elastic license
+offers you (the recipient of the software) one benefit that MIT does not: an
+explicit license for any applicable patents. However, it also has many
+additional restrictions, such as:
+
+- No sublicensing (e.g. incorporating part of it into your own program)
+- No resale (e.g. incorporating it into Red Hat and selling support)
+- No modifications which circumvent the license key activation code
+- No use in a hosted or managed service
+
+This is an objective analysis of the change. How does Apollo explain the changes?
+
+> ### Why the new license?
+>
+> The Apollo developer community is at the heart of everything we do. As
+> stewards of our community, we have a responsibility to prevent harm from
+> anyone who intends to exploit our work without contributing back. We want to
+> continue serving you by funding the development of important open-source graph
+> technology for years to come. To honor that commitment, we’re moving Apollo
+> Federation 2 to the Elastic License v2 (ELv2).
+
+Taking them at their word, this change was motivated by their deep care for
+their developer community. They want to "honor their commitment", which is to
+"fund the development of important open-source graph technology" and "prevent
+harm from anyone who intends to exploit our work without contributing back".
+
+This is a very misleading statement. The answer to the question stated by the
+header is "funding the development", but they want us to first think that
+they're keeping the community at the heart of this decision — a community
+that they have just withheld several rights from. Their wording also seeks to
+link the community with the work, "our work", when the change is clearly
+motivated from a position where Apollo believes they have effective ownership
+over the software, sole right to its commercialization, and a right to charge
+the community a rent — enforced via un-circumventable license key
+activation code. The new license gives Apollo exclusive right to commercial
+exploitation of the software — so they can "exploit our work", but the
+community itself cannot.
+
+What's more, the change does not fund "open-source graph technology" as
+advertised, because after this change, Apollo Federation is no longer open
+source. The term "open source" is defined by the [Open Source
+Definition][OSD][^3], whose first clause is:
+
+[OSD]: https://opensource.org/osd
+
+[^3]: Beware, there are more gaslighters who want us to believe that the OSD
+ does not define "open source". This is factually incorrect. Advocates of this
+ position usually have ulterior motives and, like Apollo, tend to be thinking
+ more about their wallets than the community.
+
+> [The distribution terms of open-source software] shall not restrict any party
+> from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate
+> software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The
+> license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
+
+The OSD elaborates later:
+
+> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a
+> specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from
+> being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
+>
+> The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is
+> redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those
+> parties.
+
+The Elastic license clearly does not meet this criteria.
+
+Reading the Apollo announcement further, it continues to peddle this and other
+lies. The next paragraph attempts to build legitimacy for its peers in this
+anti-FOSS gaslighting movement:
+
+> Open-source licensing is evolving with the cloud. Many successful companies
+> built on open-source technology (such as Elastic, MongoDB, and Confluent)
+> have followed the path we’re taking to protect their communities and combine
+> open, collaborative development with the benefits of cloud services that are
+> easy to adopt and manage.
+
+They continue to use "open-source" language throughout, and misleads us into
+believing that they've made this change to protect the community and empower
+developers.
+
+> When the Elastic License v2 was released, Elastic CEO Shay Banon called upon
+> open-source companies facing a similar decision to “coalesce around a smaller
+> number of licenses.” We’re excited to be part of this coalition of modern
+> infrastructure companies building businesses that empower developers. [...]
+> Moving the Apollo Federation libraries and gateway to ELv2 helps us focus on
+> our mission: empowering all of you.
+
+It should be evident by now that this is complete horseshit. Let me peel away
+the bullshit and explain what is actually going on here in plain English.
+
+Free and open source software can be commercialized — this is an essential
+requirement of the philosophy! However, it cannot be *exclusively*
+commercialized. Businesses which participate in the FOSS ecosystem must give up
+their intellectual property monopoly, and allow the commercial ecosystem to
+flourish within their community — not just within their own ledger. They
+have to make their hosted version *better* than the competitors, or seek other
+monetization strategies: selling books, support contracts, consulting, early
+access to security patches, and so on.
+
+The community, allegedly at the heart of everything Elastic does, participates
+in the software's development, marketing, and growth, and they are rewarded with
+the right to commercialize it. The community is incentivized to contribute back
+because they retain their copyright and the right to monetize the software. [634
+people][contributors] have contributed to Apollo, and the product is the sum of
+their efforts, and should belong to them — not just to the business which
+shares a name with the software. The community built their projects on top of
+Apollo based on the open source social contract, and gave their time, effort,
+and copyright for their contributions to it, and Apollo pulled the rug out from
+under them. In the words of Bryan Cantrill, this shameful, reprehensible
+behavior is [shitting in the pool of open source][cantrill].
+
+[contributors]: https://github.com/apollographql/apollo-client/graphs/contributors
+[cantrill]: https://invidious.mnus.de/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc&t=2483
+
+The smashing success of the free and open source software movement, both
+socially and commercially, has attracted the attention of bad actors like
+Apollo, who want to capitalize on this success without meeting its obligations.
+This wave of nonfree commercial gaslighting is part of a pattern where a company
+builds an open-source product, leverages the open-source community to build a
+market for it and to *directly* improve the product via their contributions,
+then switches to a nonfree license and steals the work for themselves, fucking
+everyone else over.
+
+Fuck Matt DeBergalis, Shay Banon, Jay Kreps, and Dev Ittycheria. These are the
+CEOs and CTOs responsible for this exploitative movement. They are morally
+bankrupt assholes and rent-seekers who gaslight and exploit the open source
+community for personal gain.
+
+This is a good reminder that this is the ultimate fate planned by any project
+which demands a copyright assignment from contributors in the form of a
+Contributor License Agreement (CLA). [Do not sign these][CLA]! Retain your
+copyright over your contributions and contribute to projects which are
+collectively owned by their community — because *that's* how you honor
+your community.
+
+[CLA]: https://drewdevault.com/2018/10/05/Dont-sign-a-CLA.html
+
+---
+
+Previously:
+
+- [Elasticsearch does not belong to Elastic](https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/19/Elasticsearch-does-not-belong-to-Elastic.html)
+- [Open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation](https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your-monopoly.html)
+- [The Developer Certificate of Origin is a great alternative to a CLA](https://drewdevault.com/2021/04/12/DCO.html)
+
+If you are an Apollo Federation user who is affected by this change, I have set
+up [a mailing list][ML] to organize a community-maintained fork. Please send an
+email to this list if you are interested in participating in such a fork.
+
+[ML]: https://lists.sr.ht/~sircmpwn/apollo-fork
