6 ms·

This seems like FUD to me. While OSI may have coined the term "open source" as a reaction to the word "free software" in the past, it did not invent the idea o

This seems like FUD to me. While OSI may have coined the term "open source" as a reaction to the word "free software" in the past, it did not invent the idea of free software. Rather, the term open source was a reaction to the desire for commerical enterprises to avoid saying software was free. Now it rejects the same argument from developers of software to make a profit, which I find ironic relative to the founding mission. Previously, Commons Clause was called out in aggressive terms in twitter, rather than seeking to understand the underlying rationale. Some of my thoughts: https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/why-open-source-needs-new-licenses-d2d9d819a10 https://medium.com/@michaeldehaan/why-open-source-needs-new-... I am left to believe OSI views this as a useful political time to self-market, or otherwise sees licenses like this - which intend to fairly compensate software developers - as something that does not promote the interests of those that primarily fund it. I'm sorry, but we don't need a gatekeeper anymore.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
The OSI is a respected organization that defends basic and non-controversial rights in open source. The underlying reasons behind the Anti-Commons Clause are unimportant if the execution leads to such an egregious violation of these principles. I support the OSI and their mission is important. Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms while reaping its benefits is ridiculous. I'm not saying that MongoDB is in the wrong here. The new license is perhaps misguided in that it seems functionally equivalent to the AGPL, but after I read it I think it meets the OSD. However, MongoDB should have spoken to the OSI before switching their license to be sure.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  >Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms OSI was specifically created to subvert freedoms that the Free Software Foundation protects, so this statement is quite ironic.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    This isn't really true. The FSF and OSI have subtly different goals but the definition of open source and free software are nearly identical. The OSI exists to be a non-political entity so that people who want to work on open source have resources to do so without necessarily participating in the politics of the FSF.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > The OSI exists to be a non-political entity so that people who want to work on open source have resources to do so without necessarily participating in the politics of the FSF. In what way is the FSF any more political than the OSI, beyond trying to protect the defined freedoms of free software? By inserting itself as the only legitimate body to define what "open-source" is, it is by definition engaging in politics, no less than the FSF. > The OSI is a respected organization that defends basic and non-controversial rights in open source It is rather assuming that the OSI is "respected" or that it defends "non-controversial rights in open source". The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me.
      - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
        >In what way is the FSF any more political than the OSI, beyond trying to protect the defined freedoms of free software? The OSI only concerns itself with defining open source and publishing a list of open source licenses. The FSF unquestionably concerns itself with much more. >The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me. No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't want to write open source software, then don't. That's your choice. But the right to do exactly this is protected by both the OSI and the FSF, and I doubt you can find another authority which disagrees.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > The OSI only concerns itself with defining open source and publishing a list of open source licenses. The FSF unquestionably concerns itself with much more. The FSF concerns itself with defining/defending free software, same as OSI does for open-source. If FSF "concerns itself with much more", I assume you would not have a problem listing some of these things. > No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't want to write open source software, then don't. That's your choice. But the right to do exactly this is protected by both the OSI and the FSF, and I doubt you can find another authority which disagrees. The difference here is that the OSI was historically created as a response to FSF for this exact purpose, whereas the FSF was primarily created to defend copyleft, later adopting some non-copyleft licenses as well, so the exact reverse of what OSI did.
vmbrasseur 8y ago
The OSI encourages and supports all people and organisations to profit from free and open source software. The ability to do so is enshrined in Item 6 of the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated The Open Source Definition provides a single point of reference for what it means for a project to be "open source." Licenses are submitted for approval by those who wish to prove that the license provides the benefits and freedoms assured by the Open Source Definition and therefore by open source. Licenses that do not provide each benefit and freedom in that definition are not not approved and are not—literally by definition—open source. MongoDB recognises the value that a consistent worldwide definition of open source provides to the entire software development ecosystem and is seeking approval for their license to show their support and respect for the definition.
- Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
  Sure, but here you are saying: 1. "Licences that conform to the OSD are open source". Agreed. 2. "Licences that do not conform to the OSD are not open source". Ok, let's run with that for now. That is not what you said upthread. You said "MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE". Nope. Even for those who accept the OSD as the sole definition of open source, you haven't yet established whether MongoDB's new licence is 1 or 2. You cannot categorically (capitally!) say "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE" until you establish that.
  - bkanber 8y ago
    Using basic context clues and inference, it's obvious she meant "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE [currently]". The license has not been approved as open source. It may be eventually, but it is not at present.
    - Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
      No. She's conflating "an OSI-approved licence" with "open source". The Open Source Definition does not contain a requirement that a licence must be OSI-approved.
BFatts 8y ago
But we do need a gatekeeper - that's where you're wrong. Without it, we don't get a fair review of licenses by people most adept at understanding what Open Source is. Without it, we will go back to the wild west of licensing where we have hundreds of OSS licenses that each have their own little clauses and are written by developers, not lawyers, so they don't really hold up in court. Open Source is for corporations to benefit from FOSS without the need to spend exorbitant amounts to acquire such functionality. But corporations are bound by a set of rules to operate, and as such, so should OSS licenses. If open source were to revert to the old-style, write your own license if you want to, corporations will have a much more difficult time accepting the new software. OSS will probably die a nasty death, and we will go back to tons of proprietary software running the biggest apps. The OSI is non-political and for you to argue such is silly. The organization has one goal: to make open source easier for business. What political nature can you see in there? Do they ever restrict anyone from making money off their creations? (The answer has always been NO) So some developers want to make money on the more advanced features of their open source project. Well, if it happens after software has been around a long time (ala Redis) then people are going to complain. It sucks to have to go from a free model to a for-pay model, but I understand the motivations. I don't think any developer should be kept from making money for their work, but if they want to make money off of something AND control the source, DON'T call it open source, call it proprietary because that's what it is. The source is provided, yes, but that doesn't make it open source. To truly be open source it has to abide by the OSD and Commons Clause definitely does not. So, is it time for new open source licenses? Maybe, but they should be governed by some committee and the OSI exists so why not them? You're arguing that we should move into an anarchist style of releasing open source... The time has come to make money!! Well, again, that's basically what proprietary software is all about.
- hartator 8y ago
  > The source is provided, yes, but that doesn't make it open source. For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open. After you can have more or less restrictive licenses.
  - jay-anderson 8y ago
nailer 8y ago
Saying the OSD defines Open Source is not 'FUD'. Off topic flamebait comments the one above have no place on Hacker News.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

The OSI is a respected organization that defends basic and non-controversial rights in open source. The underlying reasons behind the Anti-Commons Clause are unimportant if the execution leads to such an egregious violation of these principles. I support the OSI and their mission is important. Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms while reaping its benefits is ridiculous. I'm not saying that MongoDB is in the wrong here. The new license is perhaps misguided in that it seems functionally equivalent to the AGPL, but after I read it I think it meets the OSD. However, MongoDB should have spoken to the OSI before switching their license to be sure.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
>Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms OSI was specifically created to subvert freedoms that the Free Software Foundation protects, so this statement is quite ironic.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  This isn't really true. The FSF and OSI have subtly different goals but the definition of open source and free software are nearly identical. The OSI exists to be a non-political entity so that people who want to work on open source have resources to do so without necessarily participating in the politics of the FSF.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > The OSI exists to be a non-political entity so that people who want to work on open source have resources to do so without necessarily participating in the politics of the FSF. In what way is the FSF any more political than the OSI, beyond trying to protect the defined freedoms of free software? By inserting itself as the only legitimate body to define what "open-source" is, it is by definition engaging in politics, no less than the FSF. > The OSI is a respected organization that defends basic and non-controversial rights in open source It is rather assuming that the OSI is "respected" or that it defends "non-controversial rights in open source". The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      >In what way is the FSF any more political than the OSI, beyond trying to protect the defined freedoms of free software? The OSI only concerns itself with defining open source and publishing a list of open source licenses. The FSF unquestionably concerns itself with much more. >The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me. No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't want to write open source software, then don't. That's your choice. But the right to do exactly this is protected by both the OSI and the FSF, and I doubt you can find another authority which disagrees.
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > The OSI only concerns itself with defining open source and publishing a list of open source licenses. The FSF unquestionably concerns itself with much more. The FSF concerns itself with defining/defending free software, same as OSI does for open-source. If FSF "concerns itself with much more", I assume you would not have a problem listing some of these things. > No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't want to write open source software, then don't. That's your choice. But the right to do exactly this is protected by both the OSI and the FSF, and I doubt you can find another authority which disagrees. The difference here is that the OSI was historically created as a response to FSF for this exact purpose, whereas the FSF was primarily created to defend copyleft, later adopting some non-copyleft licenses as well, so the exact reverse of what OSI did.

vmbrasseur 8y ago

The OSI encourages and supports all people and organisations to profit from free and open source software. The ability to do so is enshrined in Item 6 of the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated The Open Source Definition provides a single point of reference for what it means for a project to be "open source." Licenses are submitted for approval by those who wish to prove that the license provides the benefits and freedoms assured by the Open Source Definition and therefore by open source. Licenses that do not provide each benefit and freedom in that definition are not not approved and are not—literally by definition—open source. MongoDB recognises the value that a consistent worldwide definition of open source provides to the entire software development ecosystem and is seeking approval for their license to show their support and respect for the definition.

Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
Sure, but here you are saying: 1. "Licences that conform to the OSD are open source". Agreed. 2. "Licences that do not conform to the OSD are not open source". Ok, let's run with that for now. That is not what you said upthread. You said "MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE". Nope. Even for those who accept the OSD as the sole definition of open source, you haven't yet established whether MongoDB's new licence is 1 or 2. You cannot categorically (capitally!) say "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE" until you establish that.
- bkanber 8y ago
  Using basic context clues and inference, it's obvious she meant "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE [currently]". The license has not been approved as open source. It may be eventually, but it is not at present.
  - Doctor_Fegg 8y ago
    No. She's conflating "an OSI-approved licence" with "open source". The Open Source Definition does not contain a requirement that a licence must be OSI-approved.

BFatts 8y ago

But we do need a gatekeeper - that's where you're wrong. Without it, we don't get a fair review of licenses by people most adept at understanding what Open Source is. Without it, we will go back to the wild west of licensing where we have hundreds of OSS licenses that each have their own little clauses and are written by developers, not lawyers, so they don't really hold up in court. Open Source is for corporations to benefit from FOSS without the need to spend exorbitant amounts to acquire such functionality. But corporations are bound by a set of rules to operate, and as such, so should OSS licenses. If open source were to revert to the old-style, write your own license if you want to, corporations will have a much more difficult time accepting the new software. OSS will probably die a nasty death, and we will go back to tons of proprietary software running the biggest apps. The OSI is non-political and for you to argue such is silly. The organization has one goal: to make open source easier for business. What political nature can you see in there? Do they ever restrict anyone from making money off their creations? (The answer has always been NO) So some developers want to make money on the more advanced features of their open source project. Well, if it happens after software has been around a long time (ala Redis) then people are going to complain. It sucks to have to go from a free model to a for-pay model, but I understand the motivations. I don't think any developer should be kept from making money for their work, but if they want to make money off of something AND control the source, DON'T call it open source, call it proprietary because that's what it is. The source is provided, yes, but that doesn't make it open source. To truly be open source it has to abide by the OSD and Commons Clause definitely does not. So, is it time for new open source licenses? Maybe, but they should be governed by some committee and the OSI exists so why not them? You're arguing that we should move into an anarchist style of releasing open source... The time has come to make money!! Well, again, that's basically what proprietary software is all about.

hartator 8y ago
> The source is provided, yes, but that doesn't make it open source. For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open. After you can have more or less restrictive licenses.
- jay-anderson 8y ago

nailer 8y ago

Saying the OSD defines Open Source is not 'FUD'. Off topic flamebait comments the one above have no place on Hacker News.