Bear Blog, a minimalist blogging platform, has made the difficult decision to change its license from the permissive MIT license to the Elastic License v2, effectively moving from open source to source-available. This change has ignited a heated discussion in the developer community about licensing, competition, and the sustainability of open source projects.
The platform's creator, Herman Martinus, explained that the decision came after repeated instances of competitors forking the project and launching competing services with minimal modifications. The pain of seeing years of dedicated work copied and turned into direct competition ultimately forced this licensing shift.
The Core Problem: Free-Ride Competition
The issue at the heart of this debate is what many call free-ride competition. Under the MIT license, anyone could take Bear's code, make minor changes, and launch a competing service without contributing back to the original project. This creates an unfair advantage for competitors who don't have to invest the time and effort in building the foundation from scratch.
The new Elastic License v2 maintains most of the freedoms of the MIT license but adds one crucial restriction: the software cannot be provided as a hosted or managed service. This means developers can still study, modify, and use the code for personal projects, but they cannot create competing commercial platforms.
License Comparison
| License Type | Commercial Use | Source Available | Hosting Restrictions | Copyleft |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MIT | ✅ Allowed | ✅ Yes | ❌ None | ❌ No |
| AGPL | ✅ Allowed | ✅ Yes | ⚠️ Must share modifications | ✅ Strong |
| Elastic License v2 | ⚠️ Limited | ✅ Yes | ✅ Cannot provide as service | ❌ No |
Community Split on Licensing Philosophy
The developer community remains deeply divided on this approach. Open source purists argue that any restriction on usage violates the fundamental principles of free software. They contend that true open source means accepting that anyone can use your code for any purpose, including direct competition.
However, a growing number of developers express sympathy for maintainers facing this dilemma. They recognize that the traditional open source model can be unsustainable for individual developers trying to build businesses around their projects.
It hurts to believe in open-source and then be bitten by it.
The AGPL Alternative Debate
Many community members suggested that Bear should have used the AGPL (Affero General Public License) instead of switching to a proprietary license. The AGPL requires anyone who provides the software as a network service to make their source code available, including any modifications.
However, this suggestion reveals another layer of complexity. Some argue that the AGPL is often chosen not for altruistic reasons but as a de facto way to prevent competition, since many large corporations avoid AGPL-licensed software due to its requirements. This creates what some call weaponized open source - using copyleft licenses primarily to discourage commercial adoption rather than to promote software freedom.
Key Licensing Terms
- Source-Available: Code is publicly viewable but with usage restrictions
- Copyleft: Requires derivative works to use the same license
- AGPL: Extends GPL requirements to network-based services
- Free-Ride Competition: Using open source code to create competing services without contributing back
- CLA (Contributor License Agreement): Legal document that grants rights to use contributed code
The Broader Implications
This licensing change reflects a larger trend in the software industry. As AI-powered development tools make it easier to fork and modify existing projects, original creators find themselves at a disadvantage. The traditional open source model assumes that the value lies in ongoing development and support, but when competitors can easily replicate and deploy services, this assumption breaks down.
The debate also highlights the tension between ideological purity and practical sustainability. While open source principles are admirable, they may not always align with the economic realities faced by individual developers trying to make a living from their work.
Looking Forward
Bear's decision represents a pragmatic approach to a complex problem. By maintaining source availability while restricting commercial competition, the project attempts to balance transparency and sustainability. Whether this model will prove successful remains to be seen, but it certainly adds fuel to the ongoing discussion about the future of open source licensing.
The community's reaction suggests that we may need new frameworks for thinking about software licensing - ones that acknowledge both the value of open collaboration and the legitimate needs of creators to sustain their projects financially.
Reference: Bear is now source-available