4 ms·

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 Sour

by 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
  The code for windows has been leaked and people could get the source. Sometimes companies have agreements for viewing the source of software they produce. These are two examples where the source code is visible, but this alone does not make them open source. There must be other attributes beyond just being able to see the source code.
- dtech 8y ago
  You're not using a useful definition. If I give you some source code, with the license that you cannot run the software, modify the code or copy or use the code in any way, it follows your definition and is still useless.
- the_af 8y ago
  > For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open. But that's not actually the most commonly accepted definition of open source. It means something else, as widely understood by the software community.
  - plopz 8y ago
    My definition is the same as his. Is there a poll or survey somewhere that determined what the commonly accepted definition was?
    - gnud 8y ago
      Well, there's this thing called the OSI [1], and they have this definition that's been around for a while. From their website: > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California. That same month, the OSI was founded. 1: https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/
    - the_af 8y ago
      Well, besides OSI's definition -- which I understand is being questioned in this comments section, so I suppose mentioning it is begging the question -- most of the bibliography and articles out there use "open source" in the sense I mentioned. Microsoft was also aware of the accepted meaning, which is why they introduced their "Shared Source Initiative" back in the old days (note how deviously careful they were about the naming).
muks 8y ago
> But we do need a gatekeeper Having observed this area for 18 years now, I'll say that gatekeeper (a party which has unwaveringly observed and stuck to delivering the principles of software freedom) is the Free Software Foundation. This is the only reason why users gravitate to "open source" - not its sexy name, but the freedoms such software provides when a user wants to use/apply it. Back in the day, the founding president of OSI justified VA Linux making the "alexandria" project closed source (the software that ran Sourceforge.net back in the day - back when sourceforge.net was a good citizen). The remains of "alexandria" was forked to form other projects such as GNU savannah, and there was a later fork named GForge IIRC. https://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2001082501120prbzcy https://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2001082501120prbzc... There is only one organization that has unwaveringly sought freedoms for users of software. I've firsthand heard it being accused of promoting communism, and sometimes have wondered if it went too far. At least, they haven't wandered in their principles.
- bigiain 8y ago
  For all his craziness, you've got to admire Stallman for his unwavering conviction of his version of what free software should be and allow. I don't know whether he'd be frothing at the mouth, or quietly thinking "I told you so..." about the current antics at Redis and Mongo...
  - jammygit 8y ago
    I wonder what it would take for the community to fork a major project in response to a license update by the original company that 'owns' it
    - bigiain 8y ago
      It's already happened for Redis I think? And MySQL -> Maria.
    - eitally 8y ago
      It happened with OpenOffice --> LibreOffice when Oracle acquired Sun.
MrStonedOne 8y ago
There is absolutely zero reason why the concept empowering open source software, the free and open exchange of code and software, can't apply to the licenses themselves. The reason I believe in open source software is that it empowers the communities and users behind the software, despite (and sometimes, in spite of) the leadership, nobody controls open source software. If the linux kernel went in a direction I didn't like, either with how they approve code change requests, or by adding in code that I don't like, I can subvert their control over the codebase with my own fork, with blackjack and hookers, and compete, because they ultimentally have no control over their codebase, it belongs to the community. This should apply to licenses as well, there should be no authority, no gatekeeper, just the community.
- Kalium 8y ago
  You're right. There's no reason at all why the concept empowering open source and the free exchange of code can't apply to licenses. After all, software is shared freely by people with the skills to handle it, why can't we do the same with licenses? Of course, this does kind of require that the people working with license experimentation know enough about law to provably know what they're doing. So perhaps the community might not be as large as might be hoped, as there are limits to what a self-taught not-lawyer can do when it comes to having legal standing.
reitzensteinm 8y ago
You have posted twenty times in this thread, largely repeating the same material. Please stop.

by BFatts 8y ago

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
The code for windows has been leaked and people could get the source. Sometimes companies have agreements for viewing the source of software they produce. These are two examples where the source code is visible, but this alone does not make them open source. There must be other attributes beyond just being able to see the source code.
dtech 8y ago
You're not using a useful definition. If I give you some source code, with the license that you cannot run the software, modify the code or copy or use the code in any way, it follows your definition and is still useless.
the_af 8y ago
> For me it's actually the definition of open source, having the sources in the open. But that's not actually the most commonly accepted definition of open source. It means something else, as widely understood by the software community.
- plopz 8y ago
  My definition is the same as his. Is there a poll or survey somewhere that determined what the commonly accepted definition was?
  - gnud 8y ago
    Well, there's this thing called the OSI [1], and they have this definition that's been around for a while. From their website: > The “open source” label was created at a strategy session held on February 3rd, 1998 in Palo Alto, California. That same month, the OSI was founded. 1: https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/
  - the_af 8y ago
    Well, besides OSI's definition -- which I understand is being questioned in this comments section, so I suppose mentioning it is begging the question -- most of the bibliography and articles out there use "open source" in the sense I mentioned. Microsoft was also aware of the accepted meaning, which is why they introduced their "Shared Source Initiative" back in the old days (note how deviously careful they were about the naming).

muks 8y ago

> But we do need a gatekeeper Having observed this area for 18 years now, I'll say that gatekeeper (a party which has unwaveringly observed and stuck to delivering the principles of software freedom) is the Free Software Foundation. This is the only reason why users gravitate to "open source" - not its sexy name, but the freedoms such software provides when a user wants to use/apply it. Back in the day, the founding president of OSI justified VA Linux making the "alexandria" project closed source (the software that ran Sourceforge.net back in the day - back when sourceforge.net was a good citizen). The remains of "alexandria" was forked to form other projects such as GNU savannah, and there was a later fork named GForge IIRC. https://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2001082501120prbzcy https://www.linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2001082501120prbzc... There is only one organization that has unwaveringly sought freedoms for users of software. I've firsthand heard it being accused of promoting communism, and sometimes have wondered if it went too far. At least, they haven't wandered in their principles.

bigiain 8y ago
For all his craziness, you've got to admire Stallman for his unwavering conviction of his version of what free software should be and allow. I don't know whether he'd be frothing at the mouth, or quietly thinking "I told you so..." about the current antics at Redis and Mongo...
- jammygit 8y ago
  I wonder what it would take for the community to fork a major project in response to a license update by the original company that 'owns' it
  - bigiain 8y ago
    It's already happened for Redis I think? And MySQL -> Maria.
  - eitally 8y ago
    It happened with OpenOffice --> LibreOffice when Oracle acquired Sun.

MrStonedOne 8y ago

There is absolutely zero reason why the concept empowering open source software, the free and open exchange of code and software, can't apply to the licenses themselves. The reason I believe in open source software is that it empowers the communities and users behind the software, despite (and sometimes, in spite of) the leadership, nobody controls open source software. If the linux kernel went in a direction I didn't like, either with how they approve code change requests, or by adding in code that I don't like, I can subvert their control over the codebase with my own fork, with blackjack and hookers, and compete, because they ultimentally have no control over their codebase, it belongs to the community. This should apply to licenses as well, there should be no authority, no gatekeeper, just the community.

Kalium 8y ago
You're right. There's no reason at all why the concept empowering open source and the free exchange of code can't apply to licenses. After all, software is shared freely by people with the skills to handle it, why can't we do the same with licenses? Of course, this does kind of require that the people working with license experimentation know enough about law to provably know what they're doing. So perhaps the community might not be as large as might be hoped, as there are limits to what a self-taught not-lawyer can do when it comes to having legal standing.

reitzensteinm 8y ago

You have posted twenty times in this thread, largely repeating the same material. Please stop.