First they’re always nagging you to get a subscription. Then they make system upgrades harder for free customers. Then the gatekeep you from the enterprise repositories in true RedHat fashion and have important fixes from the pve-no-subscription repository multiple times.
Comment on Broadcom yanks ESXi Free version, effective immediately
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 year agoWhat about Proxmox makes its license questionable?
TCB13@lemmy.world 1 year ago
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 year ago
As long as the source code is freely available, that’s entirely congruent with GPL, which is one of the most stringent licenses. You can lay a lot of criticism on their business practices, and I would not deploy this on my home server, but it haven’t seen any evidence that they’re infringing any licenses.
TCB13@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Okay if you want to strictly look at licenses per si no issues there. But the rest of what I described I believe we can agree is very questionable, takes into questionable open-source.
acockworkorange@mander.xyz 1 year ago
I beg to differ. Building a business model around open source is tricky at best. There’s always tradeoffs, and their model means they have less support from the broader community as their project will be used less. It’s their choice to make and I don’t see anything questionable with it. It’s one of the stated goals of GPL to not impede business with open source.
Proxmox isn’t making you sign away rights granted by the license - that to me is questionable legally and downright bullshit morally. Again, what they’re doing is fine, even if it makes their product undesirable to me.
Thank you for putting the word out on Incus as an alternative to Proxmox, one that is likely to fit the needs of many that are ill served by Proxmox. But besmirching their reputation on moral grounds doesn’t do anyone any favors. It ends up soiling the reputation of Incus as a side effect, even.
Voroxpete@sh.itjust.works 1 year ago
“How dare this business try to make money?!!”
Open source still has to exist within the framework of capitalism. I am all for building the fully automated luxury gay space communist utopia where people just build awesome software and release it for free all the time without ever having to worry about paying the bills (seriously, hyperbole aside, I would encourage every open-source advocate to think about how much more awesome stuff we would have if universal basic income was a thing), but that is simply not the world we’re in right now. They need to keep the lights on, and that means advertising their paid services.
moonpiedumplings@programming.dev 1 year ago
Nothing that is more questionable than lxd, which now requires a contributor license agreement, allowing canonical to not open source their hosted versions, despite lxd being agpl.
Thankfully, it’s been forked as incus, and debian is encouraging users to migrate.
But yeah. They haven’t said what makes proxmox’s license questionable.
TCB13@lemmy.world 1 year ago
Yes, the people running the original LXC and LXD projects under Canonical now work on Incus under the Linux Containers initiative. Totally insulated from potential Canonical BS. :)
The move from LXD to Incus should be transparent as it guarantees compatibility for now. But even if you install Debian 12 today and LXD from the Debian repository you’re already insulated from Canonical.