4 ms·

There's a disturbing trend that's similar to Microsoft's Shared Source [1] initiative from last decade, used by GitLab Enterprise [2] and Greensock [3]. The cod

There's a disturbing trend that's similar to Microsoft's Shared Source [1] initiative from last decade, used by GitLab Enterprise [2] and Greensock [3]. The code is available for anyone to download, but is not under an Open Source license. They have the option of accusing their competitors of looking at their source code. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_source [2] https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ee/ [3] https://github.com/greensock/GreenSock-JS https://github.com/greensock/GreenSock-JS

ocdtrekkie 8y ago
I'd rather this over proprietary software that you simply cannot verify what it does, to be fair. There's nothing inherently wrong with proprietary licensing, IMHO, so being able to be clear about what's in it is nice. That accusation is possible even with code that's been decompiled, so it's not really any different: A legal claim still requires some sort of proof.
ternaryoperator 8y ago
It's useful to note that the term "open source" does not require an OSI-approved license. It is conventional that the term implies an OSI license, but there are projects that are undeniably open source which are not issued under an OSI license. SQLite being one of the most prominent ones. All that can be said today formally about a project is whether or not it's OSI-licensed, rather than whether it's open source. So companies such as GitLab can claim they are "open source" legitimately without using an OSI license--as can SQLite. Edit: clarity
- benatkin 8y ago
  Only because it isn't trademarked. Anyone who has the slightest shred of respect for open source community uses the term properly. They coined the term. As for SQLite, it's compatible with OSI licenses. It has been folded into a larger work that's licensed under an OSI approved license countless times. There are some projects that might throw around the term public domain but I'd have to examine the details to see if it's ready to be used as part of an open source project.
  - ternaryoperator 8y ago
    >They coined the term. The term was coined by Christine Peterson who was not part of OSI, AFAIK. [1] [1] https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
    - benatkin 8y ago
      I wasn't using the terms "open source community" and OSI interchangeably.
- JoshTriplett 8y ago
  > there are projects that are undeniably open source which are not issued under an OSI license. SQLite being one of the most prominent ones SQLite is public domain. The OSI recommends against using a simple public domain declaration, but at the same time, does effectively say "for practical purposes it more or less works, though we recommend using a license instead": https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
- quadrangle 8y ago
  GitLab can only fairly claim they are "open source" because they do have a fully-functional core of the project that is truly open source. Whether a license is specifically OSI-approved, isn't the point. The point is that "open source" means something as a term, and that is widely respected as the standard. If someone claims a license to be "open source" when it doesn't meet the definition, they can and will be rightly criticized for being deceptive in using the term wrongly.
slavik81 8y ago
Why do you say this is a trend? GitLab is open source with proprietary extensions and GreenSock is just plain proprietary with readable source. Those models have existed since before the term 'open source' was even coined and there have been countless examples of each over the decades. For an example of things going the other way, Qt relicensed all their proprietary libraries to LPGLv3 just a few years back.

ocdtrekkie 8y ago

I'd rather this over proprietary software that you simply cannot verify what it does, to be fair. There's nothing inherently wrong with proprietary licensing, IMHO, so being able to be clear about what's in it is nice. That accusation is possible even with code that's been decompiled, so it's not really any different: A legal claim still requires some sort of proof.

ternaryoperator 8y ago

It's useful to note that the term "open source" does not require an OSI-approved license. It is conventional that the term implies an OSI license, but there are projects that are undeniably open source which are not issued under an OSI license. SQLite being one of the most prominent ones. All that can be said today formally about a project is whether or not it's OSI-licensed, rather than whether it's open source. So companies such as GitLab can claim they are "open source" legitimately without using an OSI license--as can SQLite. Edit: clarity

benatkin 8y ago
Only because it isn't trademarked. Anyone who has the slightest shred of respect for open source community uses the term properly. They coined the term. As for SQLite, it's compatible with OSI licenses. It has been folded into a larger work that's licensed under an OSI approved license countless times. There are some projects that might throw around the term public domain but I'd have to examine the details to see if it's ready to be used as part of an open source project.
- ternaryoperator 8y ago
  >They coined the term. The term was coined by Christine Peterson who was not part of OSI, AFAIK. [1] [1] https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
  - benatkin 8y ago
    I wasn't using the terms "open source community" and OSI interchangeably.
JoshTriplett 8y ago
> there are projects that are undeniably open source which are not issued under an OSI license. SQLite being one of the most prominent ones SQLite is public domain. The OSI recommends against using a simple public domain declaration, but at the same time, does effectively say "for practical purposes it more or less works, though we recommend using a license instead": https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain https://opensource.org/faq#public-domain
quadrangle 8y ago
GitLab can only fairly claim they are "open source" because they do have a fully-functional core of the project that is truly open source. Whether a license is specifically OSI-approved, isn't the point. The point is that "open source" means something as a term, and that is widely respected as the standard. If someone claims a license to be "open source" when it doesn't meet the definition, they can and will be rightly criticized for being deceptive in using the term wrongly.

slavik81 8y ago

Why do you say this is a trend? GitLab is open source with proprietary extensions and GreenSock is just plain proprietary with readable source. Those models have existed since before the term 'open source' was even coined and there have been countless examples of each over the decades. For an example of things going the other way, Qt relicensed all their proprietary libraries to LPGLv3 just a few years back.