4 ms·

> The "world" won't let you call your license open source for good reason What is that good reason? Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spi

> The "world" won't let you call your license open source for good reason What is that good reason? Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem?

the_af 8y ago
> Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? Exactly, it's not. > How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem? Whether it's bad is a value judgment I can't answer; it's not open source because it forbids redistribution of the source.
- amirathi 8y ago
  Do you not see any problem with that? Companies who are good at commercialisation gets all the dough for work created by small group of inventors. Is protecting inventors interest not important? Isn't this negatively affecting the ecosystem where there's less motivation for inventors to create open source software in the first place? > it's not open source because it forbids redistribution of the source. This can be solved easily. The "View and Internal Use License" can allow redistribution under the same license (verbatim).
  - the_af 8y ago
    I'm not going to debate open source with you, because as you can imagine this is a topic that's been debated for decades, and as any debate that mixes philosophical and technical issues, it's definitely neither easy nor clear cut. Open source is mostly about user rights (making things more confusing, a user is sometimes also a developer!). By restricting the users' right to resell or redistribute the source code of your software, you are effectively making it not open source. If you think an open source license is not in your best interest because of these rights, it'd be totally understandable if you decide not to use one. > This can be solved easily. The "View and Internal Use License" can allow redistribution under the same license (verbatim). I think you'll find once you add all the necessary provisions for adding users rights, you'll end up with an open source license :) I'd be wary of saying "this can be solved easily": if you follow any kind of debate about software licenses, proprietary or otherwise, you'll see there's nothing easy about them. Any license that is more complex than "do whatever you want with this" is probably not easy.
    - amirathi 8y ago
      > By restricting the users' right to resell or redistribute the source code of your software, you are effectively making it not open source. Then the discussion Open Source ecosystem needs to have is whether "protecting users' right to resell" is net positive or net negative for the ecosystem. And answer could go either ways but that dialogue needs to happen. Last major update amongst any of the popular OSS license was in 2007 to AGPL. It's been 11 years and SaaS/Cloud world has changed a lot in this time. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to review and see if we need an additional license that's net positive for the ecosystem. Just accepting current textbook definitions of Open Source and abiding by it all our life seems too pedantic.
      - the_af 8y ago
        It's not the "current textbook definition" but a living consensus. This "dialogue" you want begun decades ago and is still ongoing. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. (If you want an even more difficult debate, there's the "open source" vs "free/libre software" thing: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....) > Then the discussion Open Source ecosystem needs to have is whether "protecting users' right to resell" is net positive Well, reselling is not the most important aspect; it's a side-effect of unrestricted users' rights. If you restrict users' rights (e.g. you forbid reselling), open source becomes less appealing and not particularly different to Microsoft's Shared Source and similar proprietary-but-you-can-see-the-source licenses. By the way, "net positive" is a tricky concept. Open source is in my opinion a "net positive", but it involves some trade-offs. Proprietary licenses like the one you seem to favor also have trade-offs. > it's time to review and see if we need an additional license that's net positive for the ecosystem. Which ecosystem is that? To be honest, it seems to me you don't want an open source license. And that's fine. Not sure why you want open source to change its meaning to what you propose (which isn't new either), instead of simply accepting the license you want/need is not open source.
e12e 8y ago
It would be closer to "source available". See eg tarsnap. > Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? Roughly (IMNHO) there's Stallman/gnu style Free software, which is about user freedoms (freedom to run the software being freedom zero). And the Raymond/cathedral vs bazaar "open source", which is about developer freedom - the freedom to learn from and build (in also a business sense) on other software (mit/bsd/apache etc). The distinction isn't absolute, a gnu "user" is certainly a developer too - but "open source" isn't as concerned with user freedom - especially freedom zero. With drm, signed bootloaders and trusted computing - it's easy to see a world where even access to source code and compiler tool chain doesn't guarantee the freedom to run a) binary software from a vendor, nor b) software binaries you make yourself. So gnu/free software isn't primarily about preventing commercialization (see eg: walnut creek software and their CD rom/floppy shipping business) - it's about maintaining user freedom. And many believe the only real way to legally protect end user freedoms is through means like gpl/AGPL. In a sense gnu is pessimistic free software (what if I can't (legally) access a c compiler and kernel header files - how can I even build a new printer driver then?) - open source is more libertarian/free market optimistic: go ahead build a firewall appliance from this distribution and lock your customers out - there's plenty other folk that will keep sharing and caring. And if you develop a cool, high performance userspace network stack we'd love for you to share - but do as you please) Neither is about preventing commercialization - both are about securing access and openness. Now, they do work against certain types of legal mechanisms that are associated with commercialization, like patents and copyright. Lastly,in a world with copyright, "source available" can be very dangerous to developers (this include text books with unclear licenses for code examples). What happens when I copy your btree implementation? You did show it to me. Was I supposed to forget about it?).

the_af 8y ago

> Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? Exactly, it's not. > How is my "View and Internal Use License" bad for the open source ecosystem? Whether it's bad is a value judgment I can't answer; it's not open source because it forbids redistribution of the source.

amirathi 8y ago
Do you not see any problem with that? Companies who are good at commercialisation gets all the dough for work created by small group of inventors. Is protecting inventors interest not important? Isn't this negatively affecting the ecosystem where there's less motivation for inventors to create open source software in the first place? > it's not open source because it forbids redistribution of the source. This can be solved easily. The "View and Internal Use License" can allow redistribution under the same license (verbatim).
- the_af 8y ago
  I'm not going to debate open source with you, because as you can imagine this is a topic that's been debated for decades, and as any debate that mixes philosophical and technical issues, it's definitely neither easy nor clear cut. Open source is mostly about user rights (making things more confusing, a user is sometimes also a developer!). By restricting the users' right to resell or redistribute the source code of your software, you are effectively making it not open source. If you think an open source license is not in your best interest because of these rights, it'd be totally understandable if you decide not to use one. > This can be solved easily. The "View and Internal Use License" can allow redistribution under the same license (verbatim). I think you'll find once you add all the necessary provisions for adding users rights, you'll end up with an open source license :) I'd be wary of saying "this can be solved easily": if you follow any kind of debate about software licenses, proprietary or otherwise, you'll see there's nothing easy about them. Any license that is more complex than "do whatever you want with this" is probably not easy.
  - amirathi 8y ago
    > By restricting the users' right to resell or redistribute the source code of your software, you are effectively making it not open source. Then the discussion Open Source ecosystem needs to have is whether "protecting users' right to resell" is net positive or net negative for the ecosystem. And answer could go either ways but that dialogue needs to happen. Last major update amongst any of the popular OSS license was in 2007 to AGPL. It's been 11 years and SaaS/Cloud world has changed a lot in this time. Maybe, just maybe, it's time to review and see if we need an additional license that's net positive for the ecosystem. Just accepting current textbook definitions of Open Source and abiding by it all our life seems too pedantic.
    - the_af 8y ago
      It's not the "current textbook definition" but a living consensus. This "dialogue" you want begun decades ago and is still ongoing. I'm not sure why you think otherwise. (If you want an even more difficult debate, there's the "open source" vs "free/libre software" thing: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....) > Then the discussion Open Source ecosystem needs to have is whether "protecting users' right to resell" is net positive Well, reselling is not the most important aspect; it's a side-effect of unrestricted users' rights. If you restrict users' rights (e.g. you forbid reselling), open source becomes less appealing and not particularly different to Microsoft's Shared Source and similar proprietary-but-you-can-see-the-source licenses. By the way, "net positive" is a tricky concept. Open source is in my opinion a "net positive", but it involves some trade-offs. Proprietary licenses like the one you seem to favor also have trade-offs. > it's time to review and see if we need an additional license that's net positive for the ecosystem. Which ecosystem is that? To be honest, it seems to me you don't want an open source license. And that's fine. Not sure why you want open source to change its meaning to what you propose (which isn't new either), instead of simply accepting the license you want/need is not open source.

e12e 8y ago

It would be closer to "source available". See eg tarsnap. > Is prohibiting commercialisation of my work not in the spirit of open source? Roughly (IMNHO) there's Stallman/gnu style Free software, which is about user freedoms (freedom to run the software being freedom zero). And the Raymond/cathedral vs bazaar "open source", which is about developer freedom - the freedom to learn from and build (in also a business sense) on other software (mit/bsd/apache etc). The distinction isn't absolute, a gnu "user" is certainly a developer too - but "open source" isn't as concerned with user freedom - especially freedom zero. With drm, signed bootloaders and trusted computing - it's easy to see a world where even access to source code and compiler tool chain doesn't guarantee the freedom to run a) binary software from a vendor, nor b) software binaries you make yourself. So gnu/free software isn't primarily about preventing commercialization (see eg: walnut creek software and their CD rom/floppy shipping business) - it's about maintaining user freedom. And many believe the only real way to legally protect end user freedoms is through means like gpl/AGPL. In a sense gnu is pessimistic free software (what if I can't (legally) access a c compiler and kernel header files - how can I even build a new printer driver then?) - open source is more libertarian/free market optimistic: go ahead build a firewall appliance from this distribution and lock your customers out - there's plenty other folk that will keep sharing and caring. And if you develop a cool, high performance userspace network stack we'd love for you to share - but do as you please) Neither is about preventing commercialization - both are about securing access and openness. Now, they do work against certain types of legal mechanisms that are associated with commercialization, like patents and copyright. Lastly,in a world with copyright, "source available" can be very dangerous to developers (this include text books with unclear licenses for code examples). What happens when I copy your btree implementation? You did show it to me. Was I supposed to forget about it?).