5 ms·

When did the definition of "open source" change? I always took "open source" to be an umbrella term that contained both Apache-type licenses and GPL/FSF-type li

When did the definition of "open source" change? I always took "open source" to be an umbrella term that contained both Apache-type licenses and GPL/FSF-type licenses. I get that Commons Clause is more restrictive in ways than GPL, but GPL is definitely open source. So what makes Commons Clause not open source, if GPL is?

ealexhudson 8y ago
You can sell GPL'd software (on its own or as a service), you can't sell Commons Cause software as a service.
brazzledazzle 8y ago
It’s not really Apache though. That’s the problem I see with it. If you tell me you’re Apache licensed I shouldn’t be surprised when I open your license file.
Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
The definition of "open source" never changed. Apache and the GPL are both open source licenses. Appending the Commons Clause removes the zeroth freedom (FSF lingo) or the first clause (OSI lingo). https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html
- eecc 8y ago
  Which in today’s world where “we were planning to fund our lives offering professional services around a production deployment” is kindly railroaded by rock bottom AWS prices is a-ok... That’s the server side version of the anti-tivo clause that made the GPLv3. I see a v4 coming
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    Withholding judgement on whether or not using a non-open license is the appropriate choice for Dgraph, the problem persists that their language is deliberately misleading. Also, GPLv3 already prevents you from tacking on the Commons Clause, any software using any GPL-family license cannot include the Commons Clause. Finally, AGPL was explicitly designed years ago to address the case you raise, i.e. the server-side Tivo problem.
    - XiZhao 8y ago
      Not true. See the AGPL section in the FAQ: https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/
      - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
        I don't think this is an accurate depiction of the problems with AGPL. I think the motivations are more accurately that companies like Google refuse to use AGPL'd software and businesses based on open-source/source-open software want to do business with Google et al. Of course, you wrote this FAQ entry, so maybe I'm wrong.
    - dragonwriter 8y ago
      > Also, GPLv3 already prevents you from tacking on the Commons Clause It prevents relicensing under the Commons Clause, but I don't see that GPLv3 + Commons Clause would be impossible as an original license, though it has more inherent conflicts to create ambiguity as to actual legal effect than Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause.
      - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
        Text quoted from GPLv3: >All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
        dragonwriter 8y ago
        I remembered the term prohibiting adding restrictive terms, but forgot the “if you got an additional restrictive term, you can release it.” That strictly doesn't prohibit GPLv3 + Commons Clause as an original license, but would seem to make it functionally equivalent to bare GPLv3.
    - reitanqild 8y ago
marknadal 8y ago
The definition has not changed, "Open Source" arose as a reaction against GPL/FSF/etc. so that code could truly be open for any and all.
- diaz 8y ago
  Open source is not open for all. Is open only to the developers. The most and the important distinction. Anyway we should avoid creating this confusion with this new crazy license, commons clause is malicioua in ita attempt to use a well understood term in a way that twista its meaning.
striking 8y ago
From https://commonsclause.com https://commonsclause.com: > It [sic] this “Open Source”? > No. [also sic] > “Open source”, has a specific definition that was written years ago and is by the Open Source Initiative, which approves Open Source licenses. Applying the Commons Clause to an open source project will mean the source code is available, and meets many of the elements of the Open Source Definition, such as free access to source code, freedom to modify, and freedom to re-distribute, but not all of them. So to avoid confusion, it is best not to call Commons Clause software “open source.” Additionally, "Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause" is not an Apache license. I have seen a number of people be confused by this. I hope Apache implements some guidance with regards to trademarks on this matter, mostly so I don't have to keep saying it.

ealexhudson 8y ago

You can sell GPL'd software (on its own or as a service), you can't sell Commons Cause software as a service.

brazzledazzle 8y ago

It’s not really Apache though. That’s the problem I see with it. If you tell me you’re Apache licensed I shouldn’t be surprised when I open your license file.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

The definition of "open source" never changed. Apache and the GPL are both open source licenses. Appending the Commons Clause removes the zeroth freedom (FSF lingo) or the first clause (OSI lingo). https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

eecc 8y ago
Which in today’s world where “we were planning to fund our lives offering professional services around a production deployment” is kindly railroaded by rock bottom AWS prices is a-ok... That’s the server side version of the anti-tivo clause that made the GPLv3. I see a v4 coming
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  Withholding judgement on whether or not using a non-open license is the appropriate choice for Dgraph, the problem persists that their language is deliberately misleading. Also, GPLv3 already prevents you from tacking on the Commons Clause, any software using any GPL-family license cannot include the Commons Clause. Finally, AGPL was explicitly designed years ago to address the case you raise, i.e. the server-side Tivo problem.
  - XiZhao 8y ago
    Not true. See the AGPL section in the FAQ: https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      I don't think this is an accurate depiction of the problems with AGPL. I think the motivations are more accurately that companies like Google refuse to use AGPL'd software and businesses based on open-source/source-open software want to do business with Google et al. Of course, you wrote this FAQ entry, so maybe I'm wrong.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    > Also, GPLv3 already prevents you from tacking on the Commons Clause It prevents relicensing under the Commons Clause, but I don't see that GPLv3 + Commons Clause would be impossible as an original license, though it has more inherent conflicts to create ambiguity as to actual legal effect than Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      Text quoted from GPLv3: >All other non-permissive additional terms are considered “further restrictions” within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term.
      - dragonwriter 8y ago
        I remembered the term prohibiting adding restrictive terms, but forgot the “if you got an additional restrictive term, you can release it.” That strictly doesn't prohibit GPLv3 + Commons Clause as an original license, but would seem to make it functionally equivalent to bare GPLv3.
  - reitanqild 8y ago

marknadal 8y ago

The definition has not changed, "Open Source" arose as a reaction against GPL/FSF/etc. so that code could truly be open for any and all.

diaz 8y ago
Open source is not open for all. Is open only to the developers. The most and the important distinction. Anyway we should avoid creating this confusion with this new crazy license, commons clause is malicioua in ita attempt to use a well understood term in a way that twista its meaning.

striking 8y ago

From https://commonsclause.com https://commonsclause.com: > It [sic] this “Open Source”? > No. [also sic] > “Open source”, has a specific definition that was written years ago and is by the Open Source Initiative, which approves Open Source licenses. Applying the Commons Clause to an open source project will mean the source code is available, and meets many of the elements of the Open Source Definition, such as free access to source code, freedom to modify, and freedom to re-distribute, but not all of them. So to avoid confusion, it is best not to call Commons Clause software “open source.” Additionally, "Apache 2.0 + Commons Clause" is not an Apache license. I have seen a number of people be confused by this. I hope Apache implements some guidance with regards to trademarks on this matter, mostly so I don't have to keep saying it.