3 ms·

So, pet peeve time. Every once and a while Sourcegraph comes up again, and I check to see if they've moved away from trying to do their (completely non-free) Fa

by barakm 10y ago

So, pet peeve time. Every once and a while Sourcegraph comes up again, and I check to see if they've moved away from trying to do their (completely non-free) Fair Source thing. (https://fair.io/ https://fair.io/) This time it seems they have, mostly! None of their code on Github uses it, and the sourcegraph/sourcegraph project itself has gone private. Leading to a broken link on some of their repos (eg, https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph-browser-extensions https://github.com/sourcegraph/sourcegraph-browser-extension...) -- but, hey, it's not like it was required to stay open, so, fair enough. Now if they can just update their terms of service to remove any question of it (it's still there), and I'm on board. Because I really want to use this!

boyter 10y ago
What exactly is your issue with that licence? I ask having published some code under it recently. I understand that it's "non free" but half the time people on seem to want source because they think they should see it. I am going to put a timebomb in my software though. Each major release will become GPL3 exactly 3 years after its release. Would these terms be acceptable to you?
- parent5446 10y ago
  The purpose of free software is to protect the freedom of users to use, modify, and distribute the source code they run on their computer. If it doesn't fit that definition, it's considered violating those rights.
  - boyter 10y ago
    I am familiar with the FSF line on this. The same argument applies to any closed source software. However I want to know why OP is against the Fair Source licence, especially if it is time-bombed with a clause that reverts to GPL after a period of time.
- piotrkaminski 10y ago
  I'm also curious what the issue is. While I understand that a full open source license would be preferable to many, if the choice is between Fair Source and a proprietary code base, is there a rational reason for users to prefer the latter? (Assuming, of course, that the licensor doesn't try to spin the Fair Source as open source in PR, which would be annoying. I assume Sourcegraph doesn't do this, though.)
  - sqs 10y ago
    Sourcegraph CEO here. Your assumption is right. :) The Fair Source site (https://fair.io https://fair.io) and our own materials are clear about Fair Source not being open source. If you see any folks out there getting confused, let me know!

by barakm 10y ago

boyter 10y ago

What exactly is your issue with that licence? I ask having published some code under it recently. I understand that it's "non free" but half the time people on seem to want source because they think they should see it. I am going to put a timebomb in my software though. Each major release will become GPL3 exactly 3 years after its release. Would these terms be acceptable to you?

parent5446 10y ago
The purpose of free software is to protect the freedom of users to use, modify, and distribute the source code they run on their computer. If it doesn't fit that definition, it's considered violating those rights.
- boyter 10y ago
  I am familiar with the FSF line on this. The same argument applies to any closed source software. However I want to know why OP is against the Fair Source licence, especially if it is time-bombed with a clause that reverts to GPL after a period of time.
piotrkaminski 10y ago
I'm also curious what the issue is. While I understand that a full open source license would be preferable to many, if the choice is between Fair Source and a proprietary code base, is there a rational reason for users to prefer the latter? (Assuming, of course, that the licensor doesn't try to spin the Fair Source as open source in PR, which would be annoying. I assume Sourcegraph doesn't do this, though.)
- sqs 10y ago
  Sourcegraph CEO here. Your assumption is right. :) The Fair Source site (https://fair.io https://fair.io) and our own materials are clear about Fair Source not being open source. If you see any folks out there getting confused, let me know!