6 ms·

Doesn't open source just mean you have access to read and modify the software? It's the stronger term Libre that implies that you grant all distribution/selling

by jadbox 8y ago

Doesn't open source just mean you have access to read and modify the software? It's the stronger term Libre that implies that you grant all distribution/selling rights to the public.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
No, open source is defined by the Open Source Definition, published by the OSI: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- kbenson 8y ago
  Is the contention by OSI that when they coined the label "open source" on 1998-02-03[1] that it was both unused previously and/or that they have sole claim to that label? Because that's never been how I understood it. I'm pretty sure I understood it to be, at least in it's most encompassing sense, that the source was visible long before the time OSI says it created the label. Edit: s/weakest/encompassing/ 1: https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    The generally accepted definition of open source is the OSI definition. OSI also audits and keeps a list of software which qualifies under that definition, which is accepted as the canonical list of open source licenses by everyone. Even if OSI is not your cup of tea (they're a very netural organization, so I don't see why anyone would protest their authority), the FSF is another venerable organization that provides a similar definition of open source and maintains a similar list of open source licenses. You would be hard pressed to find any other respected authority which defines open source in a manner consistent with the Commons Clause. It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. If you want to use a proprietary license, own up to it, don't try to get the mindshare of open source when you aren't. The ancient Greek empire might have included Italy in the past, but an Italian who says they're from Greece today is lying.
    - kbenson 8y ago
      > It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. That may be, but the terminology chosen by OSI is easily misunderstood, exacerbating this problem. When I see "open source", I think mostly of the source and can I see it, possibly whether I am allowed to alter it for myself. Like an "open book" (hey, I can freely annotate my own copy). Whether something is free to sell, or redistribute, or alter and redistribute always seemed like variations on what the easily inferred (even if incorrectly inferred) core meaning of open source. Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. If that's true, and common usage is at odds with OSI intention, where does that leave us? I think I could easily argue either side in that case.
      - simonw 8y ago
        > Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. It leaves us with an education problem. Ten years ago I don't recall ever seeing people confuse the term Open Source with source-code-available - but the Open Source community was much, much smaller then so I guess the people involved were all on the same page. Now that Open Source has genuinely won (when's the last time you hard a company say they have a policy of NOT using open source?) it seems we have a new terminology problem that I was previously unaware of.
  - cjbprime 8y ago
    Yes, I think so. If you believe that it was used previously, show evidence?
    - kbenson 8y ago
      I can't seem to find any, so apparently I'm misremembering. So what were we referring to Linux and the different software running on it back then as? I was running Linux back in 1996, and I can't seem to remember any other way it was referred to.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > So what were we referring to Linux and the different software running on it back then as Free Software. Sometimes with “free as in speech” to distinguish from the also common “free as in beer” no-cost but restrictively licensed (or, often at the time, with no express license) software.
brazzledazzle 8y ago
I don’t have any problems with the commons clause in principle but I think they (the commons coalition or whatever they are) should just create a new license. Like commons-apache2.0 or something. Saying you’re Apache licensed is kind of dishonest because it’s not really.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  If they do I'd rather they not use the commons name, which (perhaps intentionally) causes confusion alongside Apache Commons: https://commons.apache.org/ https://commons.apache.org/
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    I'd rather they didn't use the Apache trademark, too; just write a clear license of your own rather than trying to hijack a license with a radically different purpose but existing goodwill and then reversing it's meaning with an add-on clause.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
      It is not a radically different purpose as far as I understand; it is the same purpose: an extremely permissive and business friendly license with one, intentionally very narrow exception.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        > an extremely permissive and business friendly license In software licensing a “permissive license” is a well-established term for a free or open source license that does not restrict downstream derivatives to use the same license (or the license family) for the downstream contributions, as opposed to a copyleft license which does impose such a requirement. Apache 2.0 is, indeed, a permissive license, and that is a central purpose of its intent. (Anything) + Commons Clause is not a permissive license, and that too is a central purpose of its intent. > with one, intentionally very narrow exception. The restriction in the Common Clause is not “very narrow” (or with very clear boundaries, which makes the area of legal risk larger.)

by jadbox 8y ago

Doesn't open source just mean you have access to read and modify the software? It's the stronger term Libre that implies that you grant all distribution/selling rights to the public.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

No, open source is defined by the Open Source Definition, published by the OSI: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

kbenson 8y ago
Is the contention by OSI that when they coined the label "open source" on 1998-02-03[1] that it was both unused previously and/or that they have sole claim to that label? Because that's never been how I understood it. I'm pretty sure I understood it to be, at least in it's most encompassing sense, that the source was visible long before the time OSI says it created the label. Edit: s/weakest/encompassing/ 1: https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  The generally accepted definition of open source is the OSI definition. OSI also audits and keeps a list of software which qualifies under that definition, which is accepted as the canonical list of open source licenses by everyone. Even if OSI is not your cup of tea (they're a very netural organization, so I don't see why anyone would protest their authority), the FSF is another venerable organization that provides a similar definition of open source and maintains a similar list of open source licenses. You would be hard pressed to find any other respected authority which defines open source in a manner consistent with the Commons Clause. It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. If you want to use a proprietary license, own up to it, don't try to get the mindshare of open source when you aren't. The ancient Greek empire might have included Italy in the past, but an Italian who says they're from Greece today is lying.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > It's deliberately misleading people to ape this terminology to promote software which does not guarantee the fundamental freedoms of open source. That may be, but the terminology chosen by OSI is easily misunderstood, exacerbating this problem. When I see "open source", I think mostly of the source and can I see it, possibly whether I am allowed to alter it for myself. Like an "open book" (hey, I can freely annotate my own copy). Whether something is free to sell, or redistribute, or alter and redistribute always seemed like variations on what the easily inferred (even if incorrectly inferred) core meaning of open source. Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. If that's true, and common usage is at odds with OSI intention, where does that leave us? I think I could easily argue either side in that case.
    - simonw 8y ago
      > Interestingly, I think the vast majority of people probably think open source means the source is visible, regardless of whether it's an OSI approved license, and regardless of whether they are happy with the license. It leaves us with an education problem. Ten years ago I don't recall ever seeing people confuse the term Open Source with source-code-available - but the Open Source community was much, much smaller then so I guess the people involved were all on the same page. Now that Open Source has genuinely won (when's the last time you hard a company say they have a policy of NOT using open source?) it seems we have a new terminology problem that I was previously unaware of.
- cjbprime 8y ago
  Yes, I think so. If you believe that it was used previously, show evidence?
  - kbenson 8y ago
    I can't seem to find any, so apparently I'm misremembering. So what were we referring to Linux and the different software running on it back then as? I was running Linux back in 1996, and I can't seem to remember any other way it was referred to.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > So what were we referring to Linux and the different software running on it back then as Free Software. Sometimes with “free as in speech” to distinguish from the also common “free as in beer” no-cost but restrictively licensed (or, often at the time, with no express license) software.

brazzledazzle 8y ago

I don’t have any problems with the commons clause in principle but I think they (the commons coalition or whatever they are) should just create a new license. Like commons-apache2.0 or something. Saying you’re Apache licensed is kind of dishonest because it’s not really.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
If they do I'd rather they not use the commons name, which (perhaps intentionally) causes confusion alongside Apache Commons: https://commons.apache.org/ https://commons.apache.org/
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  I'd rather they didn't use the Apache trademark, too; just write a clear license of your own rather than trying to hijack a license with a radically different purpose but existing goodwill and then reversing it's meaning with an add-on clause.
  - reitanqild 8y ago
    It is not a radically different purpose as far as I understand; it is the same purpose: an extremely permissive and business friendly license with one, intentionally very narrow exception.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > an extremely permissive and business friendly license In software licensing a “permissive license” is a well-established term for a free or open source license that does not restrict downstream derivatives to use the same license (or the license family) for the downstream contributions, as opposed to a copyleft license which does impose such a requirement. Apache 2.0 is, indeed, a permissive license, and that is a central purpose of its intent. (Anything) + Commons Clause is not a permissive license, and that too is a central purpose of its intent. > with one, intentionally very narrow exception. The restriction in the Common Clause is not “very narrow” (or with very clear boundaries, which makes the area of legal risk larger.)