3 ms·

Because open source has a very specific definition which the licensing on this application does not conform to. The ability to produce derived works is a key at

Because open source has a very specific definition which the licensing on this application does not conform to. The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source. And I understand that these are your thoughts, but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing.

setpixel 9y ago
Why would you downvote my comment?
aviflombaum 9y ago
I would love to know the very specific definition of open source you are referring too. I believe there are multiple very specific definitions that are drastically different, from Stallman's "Free Software" to "Open Source" to "Creative Commons" and the flavors in-between. The proliferation of Open Source Licenses seems to suggest that it's not as clear as your myopic viewpoint suggests. "The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source." Where did you get that gem from? "but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing." As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License. It's free software and the code is viewable, what's so hard to understand?
- opensourcenews 9y ago
  > Where did you get that gem from? From the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License. The OSI recognizes a number of different licenses, as do the attorneys of the numerous individuals and companies making use of them. > It's free software It's not, unless I have a legal right to redistribute a modified copy. "Open source" and "free software" both have requirements to meet their respective definitions. And additonally, "source is viewable" is not the same thing as a license.
  - aviflombaum 9y ago
    OpenSource.org doesn't own the definition of "Open Source." It's a concept and idea interpreted and implemented by lots of people in different ways meaning different things. No one gets to "own" what open source means. But, in their definition: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." All that says is that derived works are allowed under the same terms as the original software, which technically could enforce a royalty payment to the original for any derivative, how would that sit with you? You're conflating community and cultural definitions with legal precedents and enforceability. GNU GPL is the only enforceable one in a US (and I think UK) court of law. In the end of the day, what's the argument - you want the software creator to use a LICENSE you approve of or else not call their software release "free" or "open" because you feel that misleading?
    - opensourcenews 9y ago
      Literally the purpose of the Open Source Initiative is to provide definition to what open source is and is not, and to prevent openwashing by companies and individuals presenting their non-open software as open source. I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks open source is a feeling subject to their own personal interpretations in lieu of license.
    - pessimizer 9y ago
      > OpenSource.org doesn't own the definition of "Open Source." Don't they, though? "Open Source" is not even a natural turn of phrase like "Free Software" is. Open Source is a strange phrase made up to describe a specific thing, and that thing is not that the source is available to be viewed. edit: Also, thinking that the GPL is the only enforceable software license is just strange.
      - kittiepryde 9y ago
        I was watching a stream at one time (wish I had a link, but it was a Microsoft project), and they called that concept 'source open' (viewable but not not modifiable).
- fenomas 9y ago
  The argument you've started here isn't meaningful. The project we're talking about doesn't (AFAICT) declare any license, so the fact that it's not open source (in the usual sense of "released under an open-source license") hardly warrants arguing. The "problematic" bit is that the project's page describes it as open-source, says "you can even make improvements", etc., though the project isn't actually licensed that way (or at all).
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
Phait 9y ago
>The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source [Citation oh so needed]
- newfoundglory 9y ago
  They gave a citation 5 hours ago, perhaps you could read the whole comment thread.

setpixel 9y ago

Why would you downvote my comment?

aviflombaum 9y ago

I would love to know the very specific definition of open source you are referring too. I believe there are multiple very specific definitions that are drastically different, from Stallman's "Free Software" to "Open Source" to "Creative Commons" and the flavors in-between. The proliferation of Open Source Licenses seems to suggest that it's not as clear as your myopic viewpoint suggests. "The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source." Where did you get that gem from? "but what I'm looking for is a clear and legally enforceable license, which seems to still be missing." As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License. It's free software and the code is viewable, what's so hard to understand?

opensourcenews 9y ago
> Where did you get that gem from? From the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd > As far as I know the only OS License that has been deemed enforceable is GNU General Public License. The OSI recognizes a number of different licenses, as do the attorneys of the numerous individuals and companies making use of them. > It's free software It's not, unless I have a legal right to redistribute a modified copy. "Open source" and "free software" both have requirements to meet their respective definitions. And additonally, "source is viewable" is not the same thing as a license.
- aviflombaum 9y ago
  OpenSource.org doesn't own the definition of "Open Source." It's a concept and idea interpreted and implemented by lots of people in different ways meaning different things. No one gets to "own" what open source means. But, in their definition: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." All that says is that derived works are allowed under the same terms as the original software, which technically could enforce a royalty payment to the original for any derivative, how would that sit with you? You're conflating community and cultural definitions with legal precedents and enforceability. GNU GPL is the only enforceable one in a US (and I think UK) court of law. In the end of the day, what's the argument - you want the software creator to use a LICENSE you approve of or else not call their software release "free" or "open" because you feel that misleading?
  - opensourcenews 9y ago
    Literally the purpose of the Open Source Initiative is to provide definition to what open source is and is not, and to prevent openwashing by companies and individuals presenting their non-open software as open source. I'm not going to argue with someone who thinks open source is a feeling subject to their own personal interpretations in lieu of license.
  - pessimizer 9y ago
    > OpenSource.org doesn't own the definition of "Open Source." Don't they, though? "Open Source" is not even a natural turn of phrase like "Free Software" is. Open Source is a strange phrase made up to describe a specific thing, and that thing is not that the source is available to be viewed. edit: Also, thinking that the GPL is the only enforceable software license is just strange.
    - kittiepryde 9y ago
      I was watching a stream at one time (wish I had a link, but it was a Microsoft project), and they called that concept 'source open' (viewable but not not modifiable).
fenomas 9y ago
The argument you've started here isn't meaningful. The project we're talking about doesn't (AFAICT) declare any license, so the fact that it's not open source (in the usual sense of "released under an open-source license") hardly warrants arguing. The "problematic" bit is that the project's page describes it as open-source, says "you can even make improvements", etc., though the project isn't actually licensed that way (or at all).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

Phait 9y ago

>The ability to produce derived works is a key attribute of open source [Citation oh so needed]

newfoundglory 9y ago
They gave a citation 5 hours ago, perhaps you could read the whole comment thread.