4 ms·

Definiton I am using is common sense. OSI one is overly complex for example it has point "5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups". > It seems you've cr

Definiton I am using is common sense. OSI one is overly complex for example it has point "5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups". > It seems you've created your own definitions for both "open source" and "free software" in order to exclude copyleft from both categories Copyleft is not a requirement for open source or OSI Open Source. It is for FSF Free Software though. I am aware of how "free software" can be misinterpreted. Thats why I havnt used it. But allow me to explain whats wrong with FSF definition. The word free implies unrestricted freedom like MIT/Public Domain which is true for users but not devs (proprietary devs to be specific). Nothing wrong with intention of this perticular definiton. But choice of the word is misleading. "republic software" may be ? Also note both are lawyers definitons. Just curious what would you label something whose source you can view and/or modify for personal use ? Google says open source. All this definition debate aside, last 5 posts have been about dev unfriendly restrictions of GPL/copyleft/share-alike. Free software was not mentioned at all. Only once[1] I mention open source which is to illustrate the point that proprietary does not necessarily mean you cannot view the source and cannot modify for personal use. Proprietary certainly does not come with same big restrictions as GPL. For a dev, MIT/BSD > Proprietary with source > Proprietary >>> GPL. > Both of these terms have definitions going back decades by now which contradict yours; in the open source case, one of the reasons for starting to using the term in the first place was to avoid possible misconceptions or misunderstandings of what "free software" referred to! Yes both have been standardized but I doubt the actual adoption. [1] Okay I have used it more than once. But every other usage works with either definitons.

schoen 11y ago
> Just curious what would you label something whose source you can view and/or modify for personal use ? Google says open source. I'd probably call it "viewable source", "source code", "software with source code", or "software with published source code".
JupiterMoon 11y ago
> Proprietary certainly does not come with same big restrictions as GPL. Have you actually read the EULAs on proprietary software?
- meanduck 11y ago
  The qualifier to note is "same" not "big restrictions". No sane developer agreement[1] would require the modification/usage and all other associated confidential IPs to be disclosed. Or it would suffer heavy market share just like GPL. Ofcourse this does not mean such proprietary softwares does not exist but they would be abandoned once another competing product without such restrictions comes to market, just like GPL. [1] Or even EULAs if the software is likely to be used as building block such as Photoshop/Unity etc. [2] I am assuming here. I would like to know if such softwares exist.
  - JupiterMoon 11y ago
    I meant the EULAs on end user software. This perfectly illustrates how completely people miss the point of the GPL. The GPL is intended to promote the freedoms of the end users of software. It is not really that concerned with developers as a special category of users. People already understand all the points you are making about developer freedom being more important that user freedom and either: (1) agree with you or, (2) disagree. If you don't like it just don't use it on your own work and use liberally licensed libraries in your own projects, don't complain on the internet about how other people choose to treat their own IP. Also your definitions are contrary to the generally accepted and fairly clearly defined ones which will just lead to confusion for you and people you interact with. Maybe it would be easier to just use the right words rather than fighting to re-define them?
    - meanduck 11y ago
      I dont know where I made you think that I misunderstand the intentions of GPL. > The GPL is intended to promote the freedoms of the end users of software. It is not really that concerned with developers as a special category of users. People already understand all the points you are making about developer freedom being more important that user freedom and either: (1) agree with you or, (2) disagree. You twice brought users into the discussion but its about effect of GPL on devs. > If you don't like it just don't use it on your own work and use liberally licensed libraries in your own projects, don't complain on the internet about how other people choose to treat their own IP. I am not complaining. I am convincing that GPL is dev-unfreindly. That is convincing devs to stay away from GPL not dictacting how they should licence their own softwares. I am also sad GPL people have made great massively collabrated projects (where most contributers do not even realize what restrictions they are imposing, even on themselves) like OpenStreetMap canserous. I will be very happy when this ideaology dies. > Also your definitions are contrary to the generally accepted and fairly clearly defined ones which will just lead to confusion for you and people you interact with. Maybe it would be easier to just use the right words rather than fighting to re-define them? Okey now you are just nitpicking. There is only one place where I can be misunderstood, and I have clarified it twice.

schoen 11y ago

> Just curious what would you label something whose source you can view and/or modify for personal use ? Google says open source. I'd probably call it "viewable source", "source code", "software with source code", or "software with published source code".

JupiterMoon 11y ago

> Proprietary certainly does not come with same big restrictions as GPL. Have you actually read the EULAs on proprietary software?

meanduck 11y ago
The qualifier to note is "same" not "big restrictions". No sane developer agreement[1] would require the modification/usage and all other associated confidential IPs to be disclosed. Or it would suffer heavy market share just like GPL. Ofcourse this does not mean such proprietary softwares does not exist but they would be abandoned once another competing product without such restrictions comes to market, just like GPL. [1] Or even EULAs if the software is likely to be used as building block such as Photoshop/Unity etc. [2] I am assuming here. I would like to know if such softwares exist.
- JupiterMoon 11y ago
  I meant the EULAs on end user software. This perfectly illustrates how completely people miss the point of the GPL. The GPL is intended to promote the freedoms of the end users of software. It is not really that concerned with developers as a special category of users. People already understand all the points you are making about developer freedom being more important that user freedom and either: (1) agree with you or, (2) disagree. If you don't like it just don't use it on your own work and use liberally licensed libraries in your own projects, don't complain on the internet about how other people choose to treat their own IP. Also your definitions are contrary to the generally accepted and fairly clearly defined ones which will just lead to confusion for you and people you interact with. Maybe it would be easier to just use the right words rather than fighting to re-define them?
  - meanduck 11y ago
    I dont know where I made you think that I misunderstand the intentions of GPL. > The GPL is intended to promote the freedoms of the end users of software. It is not really that concerned with developers as a special category of users. People already understand all the points you are making about developer freedom being more important that user freedom and either: (1) agree with you or, (2) disagree. You twice brought users into the discussion but its about effect of GPL on devs. > If you don't like it just don't use it on your own work and use liberally licensed libraries in your own projects, don't complain on the internet about how other people choose to treat their own IP. I am not complaining. I am convincing that GPL is dev-unfreindly. That is convincing devs to stay away from GPL not dictacting how they should licence their own softwares. I am also sad GPL people have made great massively collabrated projects (where most contributers do not even realize what restrictions they are imposing, even on themselves) like OpenStreetMap canserous. I will be very happy when this ideaology dies. > Also your definitions are contrary to the generally accepted and fairly clearly defined ones which will just lead to confusion for you and people you interact with. Maybe it would be easier to just use the right words rather than fighting to re-define them? Okey now you are just nitpicking. There is only one place where I can be misunderstood, and I have clarified it twice.