9 ms·

Author here. Thanks for writing up your thoughts. >As they say, not all open source is FOSS This isn't true - you mean "not all open source is copyleft". >>

Author here. Thanks for writing up your thoughts. >As they say, not all open source is FOSS This isn't true - you mean "not all open source is copyleft". >> Free and open source software licenses grant explicit freedoms to three groups: the maintainers, the users, and the contributors. >This is not the case of all open source licenses This is also not true. You should review the open source definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd >I am all-for the FOSS movement but there is no need to go full Stallman and say that everything but GPL is evil I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related. >When I discover bugs in open-source projects during my day job (which is on a closed-source project), I will be much happier having those fixes merged upstream than having to maintain our own private fork. This is definitely a valid position to hold, and I have signed CLAs on behalf of my employer before for this very reason. I suppose my article is targeted more at people contributing in their spare time, and to discourage maintainers from adopting a CLA in the first place.

Legogris 8y ago
Good points, thanks for the clarifications. > I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, but that's kind of how it came across as I read it.
- hitekker 8y ago
  Don’t be sorry. Tone is the tinge of the subconscious.
lmm 8y ago
> I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related. What is the practical difference between contributing under a CLA to a project that's currently under an open-source license and contributing under a non-copyleft open-source license while retaining the copyright yourself? In both cases the project's ability to "go closed source" seems substantially the same, so it seems to me that your arguments against signing a CLA apply equally to contributing to non-GPLed software projects.
- dec0dedab0de 8y ago
  What is the practical difference between contributing under a CLA to a project that's currently under an open-source license and contributing under a non-copyleft open-source license while retaining the copyright yourself? Most non-copyleft open-source licenses have their own requirements that must be followed even when re-licensing. Also, technically if you don't pay for code the copyright holder can revoke the license at any time. So if you sign a CLA the project can retroactively stop you from using your own code. Unfortunately, this is a major argument for projects to require a CLA in the first place.
  - Legogris 8y ago
    I don't know about where you are, but in my jurisdiction that is definitely not the case.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    >Also, technically if you don't pay for code the copyright holder can revoke the license at any time I'm pretty sure this is a myth.
    - dec0dedab0de 8y ago
      IANAL but I think it is a grey area. Licenses are contracts, and contracts usually require "consideration", but there is also something called "Promissory Estoppel" which may nullify that. I found out about it from someone on here a while back and went down a rabbit hole googling it.
      - blihp 8y ago
        The consideration with open source licenses is often authorship credit / promotional. It's not terribly different than a band giving away MP3's of their music: maybe they want to share their music with the world, maybe they want you to buy a ticket to their concert, but they are getting something out of it and are free to give away something if they have the rights to do so.
      - 8y ago
nulbyte 8y ago
>> As they say, not all open source is FOSS > This isn't true - you mean "not all open source is copyleft". Yes it is, and I'm not sure the commenter does. Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. The term "free and open-source" signifies both. > This is also not true. You should review the open source definition: > https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd That is not the definition of open-source (or even "open source"), a common term for software the source code of which is available; it is the Open Source Definition, a copyrighted work published by The Open Source Initiative. Contrary to the confusing rhetoric of the Open Source Initiative, they have no claim on how anyone uses common words in the English language like open and source. Putting the two together is trivial. Open-source is an adjective referring to the fact that that source code is available. It need not refer to some particular organization's ideology.
- rhn_mk1 8y ago
  It does seem though that the majority of uses of "open source" describes Free Software. This is in line with the origins of the phrase as well - it was created to remove the confusion stemming from the adjective "free": https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
- yarrel 8y ago
  > Open-source is an adjective referring to the fact that that source code is available. It's not. Let's not muddy the waters that this term was already introduced to further.
  - jake_the_third 8y ago
    I agree. Regardless of what GP's feelings on the matter are, Open Source is a proper and well-defined term that was originally used as a way to sell open software business models to high-level execs. I've never seen anyone advocate the term as open-but-not-free beyond those stating it to defend a point.
- mjg59 8y ago
derf_ 8y ago
> >I am all-for the FOSS movement but there is no need to go full Stallman and say that everything but GPL is evil > I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related. Not even Stallman believes this [0]. He has even explicitly endorsed the use of a "lax license" when pragmatic concerns justify it [1]. [0] http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/Real-men-don-t-attack-straw-men-tp55042p55382.html http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/Real-men-don-t-att... [1] http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3

Legogris 8y ago

Good points, thanks for the clarifications. > I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related. Sorry for putting words in your mouth, but that's kind of how it came across as I read it.

hitekker 8y ago
Don’t be sorry. Tone is the tinge of the subconscious.

lmm 8y ago

> I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related. What is the practical difference between contributing under a CLA to a project that's currently under an open-source license and contributing under a non-copyleft open-source license while retaining the copyright yourself? In both cases the project's ability to "go closed source" seems substantially the same, so it seems to me that your arguments against signing a CLA apply equally to contributing to non-GPLed software projects.

dec0dedab0de 8y ago
What is the practical difference between contributing under a CLA to a project that's currently under an open-source license and contributing under a non-copyleft open-source license while retaining the copyright yourself? Most non-copyleft open-source licenses have their own requirements that must be followed even when re-licensing. Also, technically if you don't pay for code the copyright holder can revoke the license at any time. So if you sign a CLA the project can retroactively stop you from using your own code. Unfortunately, this is a major argument for projects to require a CLA in the first place.
- Legogris 8y ago
  I don't know about where you are, but in my jurisdiction that is definitely not the case.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  >Also, technically if you don't pay for code the copyright holder can revoke the license at any time I'm pretty sure this is a myth.
  - dec0dedab0de 8y ago
    IANAL but I think it is a grey area. Licenses are contracts, and contracts usually require "consideration", but there is also something called "Promissory Estoppel" which may nullify that. I found out about it from someone on here a while back and went down a rabbit hole googling it.
    - blihp 8y ago
      The consideration with open source licenses is often authorship credit / promotional. It's not terribly different than a band giving away MP3's of their music: maybe they want to share their music with the world, maybe they want you to buy a ticket to their concert, but they are getting something out of it and are free to give away something if they have the rights to do so.
    - 8y ago

nulbyte 8y ago

>> As they say, not all open source is FOSS > This isn't true - you mean "not all open source is copyleft". Yes it is, and I'm not sure the commenter does. Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. The term "free and open-source" signifies both. > This is also not true. You should review the open source definition: > https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd That is not the definition of open-source (or even "open source"), a common term for software the source code of which is available; it is the Open Source Definition, a copyrighted work published by The Open Source Initiative. Contrary to the confusing rhetoric of the Open Source Initiative, they have no claim on how anyone uses common words in the English language like open and source. Putting the two together is trivial. Open-source is an adjective referring to the fact that that source code is available. It need not refer to some particular organization's ideology.

rhn_mk1 8y ago
It does seem though that the majority of uses of "open source" describes Free Software. This is in line with the origins of the phrase as well - it was created to remove the confusion stemming from the adjective "free": https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...
yarrel 8y ago
> Open-source is an adjective referring to the fact that that source code is available. It's not. Let's not muddy the waters that this term was already introduced to further.
- jake_the_third 8y ago
  I agree. Regardless of what GP's feelings on the matter are, Open Source is a proper and well-defined term that was originally used as a way to sell open software business models to high-level execs. I've never seen anyone advocate the term as open-but-not-free beyond those stating it to defend a point.
mjg59 8y ago

derf_ 8y ago

> >I am all-for the FOSS movement but there is no need to go full Stallman and say that everything but GPL is evil > I did not say that, nor do I believe it, nor is it really related. Not even Stallman believes this [0]. He has even explicitly endorsed the use of a "lax license" when pragmatic concerns justify it [1]. [0] http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/Real-men-don-t-attack-straw-men-tp55042p55382.html http://openbsd-archive.7691.n7.nabble.com/Real-men-don-t-att... [1] http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3 http://lwn.net/2001/0301/a/rms-ov-license.php3