4 ms·

Just because something is old, it doesn't make it true.

by bobby_the_whale 9y ago

xj9 9y ago
get back to me when the faircode license is listed on the OSI website or considered a free software license by the FSF
ehllo 9y ago
It is true, because there is a overall consent about open source.
jcranmer 9y ago
Do you have a proposed counterexample? The OSI definition is pretty much the same in spirit and in practice as, say, the DSFG or FSF definitions. Non-discriminatory terms is pretty much a fundamental precondition for any open-source license. As any lawyer would tell you--and don't forget, licenses are explicit legal contracts--licenses that include discrimination clauses of various kinds (including "fun" clauses like "don't use this for evil") are basically non-starters. It's especially problematic when the discrimination is based on something as malleable as yearly profit, so that someone's inclusion or exclusion on this basis changes every year. Licenses are legal contracts, and therefore they have the force of law behind them. Rolling your own license is a stupid idea, particularly if you are not a lawyer and you are not retaining a lawyer to give you advice on the matter. Even aspects of major licenses like 3-clause BSD, MIT, GPL, LGPL, Apache, and others have indeterminate legal repercussions, particularly when patents and copyright of contributions come into play.
- bobby_the_whale 9y ago
  You just don't get it, like so many people here. Just because the OSI put up a website supposedly defining a word doesn't mean that was the definition before they came into existence. The very first sentence of what they are saying "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. ", is exactly what open source meant before they came around. There is source available, isn't it? It's even freely available. The "definition" of "Open Source" was made by people with certain political goals. Just because your goals might be the same, or --more likely -- you are ignorant of the history, because you are presumably too young, doesn't change that. You are on a forum of ignorant young people all echoing each other as parrots. The previous generation would listen to the older people in their respective communities, but it seems all the millennials are just in a race to demonstrate their underdeveloped brains. Just because you can "vote" things up or down, doesn't entitle you to wisdom. In fact, I would consider Hacker News to be mostly a place to become stupid, judging by its community of startup wannabes.

Just because something is old, it doesn't make it true.

xj9 9y ago

get back to me when the faircode license is listed on the OSI website or considered a free software license by the FSF

ehllo 9y ago

It is true, because there is a overall consent about open source.

jcranmer 9y ago

Do you have a proposed counterexample? The OSI definition is pretty much the same in spirit and in practice as, say, the DSFG or FSF definitions. Non-discriminatory terms is pretty much a fundamental precondition for any open-source license. As any lawyer would tell you--and don't forget, licenses are explicit legal contracts--licenses that include discrimination clauses of various kinds (including "fun" clauses like "don't use this for evil") are basically non-starters. It's especially problematic when the discrimination is based on something as malleable as yearly profit, so that someone's inclusion or exclusion on this basis changes every year. Licenses are legal contracts, and therefore they have the force of law behind them. Rolling your own license is a stupid idea, particularly if you are not a lawyer and you are not retaining a lawyer to give you advice on the matter. Even aspects of major licenses like 3-clause BSD, MIT, GPL, LGPL, Apache, and others have indeterminate legal repercussions, particularly when patents and copyright of contributions come into play.

bobby_the_whale 9y ago
You just don't get it, like so many people here. Just because the OSI put up a website supposedly defining a word doesn't mean that was the definition before they came into existence. The very first sentence of what they are saying "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. ", is exactly what open source meant before they came around. There is source available, isn't it? It's even freely available. The "definition" of "Open Source" was made by people with certain political goals. Just because your goals might be the same, or --more likely -- you are ignorant of the history, because you are presumably too young, doesn't change that. You are on a forum of ignorant young people all echoing each other as parrots. The previous generation would listen to the older people in their respective communities, but it seems all the millennials are just in a race to demonstrate their underdeveloped brains. Just because you can "vote" things up or down, doesn't entitle you to wisdom. In fact, I would consider Hacker News to be mostly a place to become stupid, judging by its community of startup wannabes.