4 ms·

If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction because only Berkeley Deep Dive members can use it for commercial

If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction because only Berkeley Deep Dive members can use it for commercial purposes. EDIT: The title of this HN topic is wrong. It's not what's in the source and it to be changed. (I'm relieved that it's just a submitter summarizing incorrectly and that Berkeley Deep Dive was not responsible for this mistake.)

mehrdadn 8y ago
> If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction How do usage terms dictate whether the source is open?
- rectang 8y ago
  "Open" is not just whether you get to see it. Among other things, it's whether the software is open for all users to modify. The Open Source Definition is curated by the Open Source Initiative and has been stable for many years. A huge industry rests on top of it. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - mehrdadn 8y ago
    So you're saying neither (say) VirtualBox nor other GNU software qualify as open-source? They seem to fail the very first sentence of criterion #1, since they place restrictions on when/how you can redistribute the source/software in aggregation with other sources/software.
    - ghaff 8y ago
      The GPL absolutely falls under the open source definition. You can ship GPL programs and code alongside programs that may have different licenses. What you can't do is combine GPL code with code that has incompatible licenses. Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all.
      - mehrdadn 8y ago
        > Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all. I wasn't saying copyleft imposes restrictions on usage. The first "open-source" criterion says the following (and note that, like you said, this is a restriction on redistribution and not usage): > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. We both agree GPL places a restriction on redistribution (namely: that it must be with source code). However, criterion #1 says very clearly that the license can't place restrictions on software redistribution when it's aggregated with software from different sources. This is a pretty clear contradiction to me. The fact that you cannot redistribute GPL software without source (whether bundled with other software or otherwise) is a restriction on whether/how you can redistribute GPL software, hence it goes against the "shall not restrict" requirement. And there's no exception carved out for "restrictions that require source code to be included". So I don't see how we get to ignore this and cherry-pick what restrictions actually fall under "restrictions"...
        codetrotter 8y ago
        > namely: that it must be with source code GPL does not say that. What it does say is that you must provide the source upon request. > The fact that you cannot redistribute GPL software without source (whether bundled with other software or otherwise) is a restriction on whether/how you can redistribute GPL software, hence it goes against the "shall not restrict" requirement. And there's no exception carved out for "restrictions that require source code to be included". So all of what you said there is simply incorrect, because like I said, you absolutely can distribute GPL software without including the source code alongside it. And that is what is done by everyone 99% of the time. You only need to provide the source upon request to the people that ask you for it. I encourage you to take the time to read the GPL FAQ. Even though GPL is not my preferred license I think it is important to have a good understanding of it. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html
        mehrdadn 8y ago
- amluto 8y ago
  “Open source” means a lot more than “you may look at the source.” https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- carapace 8y ago
  "Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" by Richard Stallman > When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.” https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - rectang 8y ago
    There's a lot of interesting history between the Open Source and Free Software movements, and this is a valuable view of one side of the story. I'd recommend it for people who are interested, though I hope they would also seek out the other side. However, we're going off topic here. The self-driving download is neither Open Source nor Free Software.
    - carapace 8y ago
      Truly gracious reply. Well met. :-)
sctb 8y ago
Thanks, we've reverted the title from the submitted “UC Berkeley Open Sources Largest Self-Driving Dataset” to the original.

mehrdadn 8y ago

> If I'm reading that right, it's not an open source license. It has a field-of-use restriction How do usage terms dictate whether the source is open?

rectang 8y ago
"Open" is not just whether you get to see it. Among other things, it's whether the software is open for all users to modify. The Open Source Definition is curated by the Open Source Initiative and has been stable for many years. A huge industry rests on top of it. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  So you're saying neither (say) VirtualBox nor other GNU software qualify as open-source? They seem to fail the very first sentence of criterion #1, since they place restrictions on when/how you can redistribute the source/software in aggregation with other sources/software.
  - ghaff 8y ago
    The GPL absolutely falls under the open source definition. You can ship GPL programs and code alongside programs that may have different licenses. What you can't do is combine GPL code with code that has incompatible licenses. Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all.
    - mehrdadn 8y ago
      > Copyleft imposes some requirements on redistribution. It does not impose restrictions on usage at all. I wasn't saying copyleft imposes restrictions on usage. The first "open-source" criterion says the following (and note that, like you said, this is a restriction on redistribution and not usage): > The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. We both agree GPL places a restriction on redistribution (namely: that it must be with source code). However, criterion #1 says very clearly that the license can't place restrictions on software redistribution when it's aggregated with software from different sources. This is a pretty clear contradiction to me. The fact that you cannot redistribute GPL software without source (whether bundled with other software or otherwise) is a restriction on whether/how you can redistribute GPL software, hence it goes against the "shall not restrict" requirement. And there's no exception carved out for "restrictions that require source code to be included". So I don't see how we get to ignore this and cherry-pick what restrictions actually fall under "restrictions"...
      - codetrotter 8y ago
        > namely: that it must be with source code GPL does not say that. What it does say is that you must provide the source upon request. > The fact that you cannot redistribute GPL software without source (whether bundled with other software or otherwise) is a restriction on whether/how you can redistribute GPL software, hence it goes against the "shall not restrict" requirement. And there's no exception carved out for "restrictions that require source code to be included". So all of what you said there is simply incorrect, because like I said, you absolutely can distribute GPL software without including the source code alongside it. And that is what is done by everyone 99% of the time. You only need to provide the source upon request to the people that ask you for it. I encourage you to take the time to read the GPL FAQ. Even though GPL is not my preferred license I think it is important to have a good understanding of it. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html
        mehrdadn 8y ago
amluto 8y ago
“Open source” means a lot more than “you may look at the source.” https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
carapace 8y ago
"Why Open Source misses the point of Free Software" by Richard Stallman > When we call software “free,” we mean that it respects the users' essential freedoms: the freedom to run it, to study and change it, and to redistribute copies with or without changes. This is a matter of freedom, not price, so think of “free speech,” not “free beer.” https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- rectang 8y ago
  There's a lot of interesting history between the Open Source and Free Software movements, and this is a valuable view of one side of the story. I'd recommend it for people who are interested, though I hope they would also seek out the other side. However, we're going off topic here. The self-driving download is neither Open Source nor Free Software.
  - carapace 8y ago
    Truly gracious reply. Well met. :-)

sctb 8y ago

Thanks, we've reverted the title from the submitted “UC Berkeley Open Sources Largest Self-Driving Dataset” to the original.