3 ms·

"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 cur

"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
        >> 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. Yes, I was being brief. I'm well aware. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17202439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17202439 ------------- To your edit: > 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. No, it makes no difference at all. You cannot redistribute the software unless you are willing and able to redistribute the source code as well. That is very clearly a restriction on your redistribution of the software. The fact that we happen to be talking about the software's own source code makes no difference as to whether it's a restriction or not. It'd be a restriction whether we're talking about "source code", or "$100,000", or anything else. The simple fact that you have to be willing and able to provide {something} before you can redistribute the software is obviously a restriction on your redistribution of the software.

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
      >> 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. Yes, I was being brief. I'm well aware. [1] [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17202439 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17202439 ------------- To your edit: > 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. No, it makes no difference at all. You cannot redistribute the software unless you are willing and able to redistribute the source code as well. That is very clearly a restriction on your redistribution of the software. The fact that we happen to be talking about the software's own source code makes no difference as to whether it's a restriction or not. It'd be a restriction whether we're talking about "source code", or "$100,000", or anything else. The simple fact that you have to be willing and able to provide {something} before you can redistribute the software is obviously a restriction on your redistribution of the software.