osxfuse's new non-free license

[cadmartin]

New releases have the following message in their description:

The license has changed. Starting with the 3.10.0 release, redistributions bundled with commercial software are not allowed without specific prior written permission. Please contact Benjamin Fleischer.

However the LICENSE file does not reflect the new licensing terms.

For those of us considering contributing this project or using it as a dependency, can we get a clarification on the project's new non-free license from @bfleischer?

Thanks

[d235j]

@cadmartin the project is no longer open source either.

The latest at https://github.com/osxfuse/osxfuse/tree/support/osxfuse-3 is v3.8.3.
https://github.com/osxfuse/osxfuse/tree/releases contains no code.

Silently making a project closed-source like this, is at the very least, poor form. The updater should at least notify end users that this is happening, as well.

This post on the Google group seems to indicate what's going on: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/osxfuse-group/_5PBFQ_BQB8/z1mu2H0rFAAJ

Also #590

[bfleischer]

@d235j How would you have handled the situation? You have read #590, so you know that FUSE on macOS would most likely have died without external funding. Trust me, I tried to convince companies to fund the project for years but nothing much came of it.

@cadmartin FUSE releases up until version 3.8.3 are open source. For now, newer releases are closed source, with libosxfuse being the exemption. FUSE is and always will be free for non-commercial use. Bundling FUSE with commercial software however requires a license starting with version 3.10. If you are interested in obtaining such a license write me an email.

[d235j]

@bfleischer while I dislike that it’s closed source, that is a separate issue. I’m only advocating for transparency here.

Informing people means updating the main repo README to state that versions starting with 3.9.0 are no longer open source, and that versions starting with 3.10.0 are under a new license, with a link to the license, and

Informing people updating from 3.8.0 or 3.9.0 to 3.10.0 using the updater, as well as informing anyone who has updated via updater without being informed, of the source code availability change and the license change.

When I find out that some software package has changed license only because I’ve gone to the website and poked around, I tend to become very disillusioned due to the lack of transparency — it feels like a bait and switch. Go ahead and change the license — but let me know about it before I install the new version.

(Also separately — note that the APSL which might still cover some components of the package outside of libfuse has a weak copyleft. libosxfuse is derived from LGPL code and cannot be closed.)

[Lusitaniae]

I agree, it should be more transparent, and the readme and license files should be updated.

Otherwise, fully understand you make it close source and ask for commercial license.

[freeplant]

Hi @bfleischer,

We are using OSXFuse in our product. We are recently noticed the license issue. We have funded Dokany project for two years. So we'd like to know the details on how to fund OSXFuse. The email is already sent to you.

[exedore6]

The empty zip and tarball for the source is pretty shifty. Some of us are using it for personal use because the code is available. I understand the need to monetize it, especially with it being a kernel extension as apple tightens the screws.

But if you're gonna lock it up. I really think you need to be crystal clear that not only is the program non-free (with an undisclosed cost for a commercial license), but also closed source.

[ipatch]

i do agree there should have been some notice about the licensing changes, but in the author's defense a PR could be sent to update the README in this project to reflect the new licensing.

and yes, I'm very well aware that i could send such PR, but i'm not fully aware of all the different versions fuse or licenses, as I just came here because FWR fuse is no longer working on my box 🤷‍♂️ with ntfs-3g or ext

[flaw600]

It's not really our responsibility to update the License or the Readme: it's the maintainer's - especially if the maintainer is explicitly changing the type of project this is.

[dgordoncal]

@bfleischer We would like to hire you & contribute to keep this project going. How can we best reach you? We tried Gmail but never heard back.

[mascguy]

@bfleischer I'm interested in providing voluntary contributions to the project, if that's an option.

[bfleischer]

@mascguy Thanks for your offer. You can find my email address on my GitHub profile. How would you like to contribute?

[mascguy]

@mascguy Thanks for your offer. You can find my email address on my GitHub profile. How would you like to contribute?

I'd like to volunteer my time, in whatever way I can. Whether it's testing, documentation, sample filesystems, social media... anything to reduce the burden of maintaining the project.

I'll reach out privately via e-mail.