6 ms·

So, yes, technically, OSI does not own the term open source, and it could be that this license does comply with everything set out in the Open Source Definition

So, yes, technically, OSI does not own the term open source, and it could be that this license does comply with everything set out in the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd), and that means that, technically, "(the latest version of) MongoDB is not open source" is overstating the case. Except that, as a non-lawyer developer who generally agrees with the Open Source Definition, "under an OSI-approved license" is my working definition of "open source". I believe the same is true for many others. And, under that definition, if Ms. Brasseur doesn't consider it to be open source (yet), I'm happy to fall in line with that. She went on to say the magic words that mean so much more to me on this front than any debate about who gets to own the term: "It's probably best to limit your legal risk," and, "at this point." OSI's recommendations are a key part of how I limit my legal risk, and they're working on vetting it as we speak. My best course of action is to sit on my hands and wait for their advice.

threeseed 8y ago
Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code. Not whether OSI gives it some arbitrary stamp of approval.
- jkrems 8y ago
  Yeah, but that's a really dangerous position to take and if they'd work with me I'd be quick to set them straight. Because that path leads to legal adventure. What you are describing is "source available", not "open source". And that's a huge difference in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
  - tlrobinson 8y ago
    I'd add "redistribute" to the GP's definition, but the point stands that the definition of "open source" is not "licensed using an OSI approved license"
  - azmenak 8y ago
    A “source available” example https://github.com/highcharts/highcharts https://github.com/highcharts/highcharts
- bunderbunder 8y ago
  That's a fine interpretation of the term for amateurs. By which I mean, it's probably fine to think of things that way when you're working in an amateur capacity. If you're working in a non-amateur capacity, thinking about things that way could result in unwittingly exposing yourself to more legal risk than you want.
  - threeseed 8y ago
    If I am using an open source project I make sure to understand the license rather than blindly trusting some organisation. Seems pretty amateur not to do this.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - tlrobinson 8y ago
    I don't think simply checking that the license is "OSI approved" gives you many legal guarantees. There are currently 83 "OSI approved" licenses containing a variety of terms, from aggressively copyleft to extremely permissive: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      I don't either. . . we might be playing a game of moving goalposts here. I was specifically responding to the observation that, "Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code.", and saying that that, while that is a workable definition, it's probably not one that most people want to use.
      - jfoutz 8y ago
        You might want to be a little tighter with that definition. You can find the source for all sorts of crazy stuff. And with that, you can modify it. Oracle or Microsoft or any other copyright holder that didn’t release that is going to be ticked off at you. There has to be some element of the author wants you to have it. I know this sounds silly and pedantic. I think there have been organizations that ignored copyright and released stuff they didn’t control the rights to. You might want to tack on something about the authors want me to have access to this.
- Intermernet 8y ago
  >Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code. Do you mean legally? If not, Windows 2000 is open source. If so, then that's what the OSI tries to ensure.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - icebraining 8y ago
    No, the OSD according to the OSI requires much more than seeing and modifying.
    - Intermernet 8y ago
      Yes, the OSD tries to include legality in "seeing and modifying". If you regard Open Source as just "seeing and modifying" the source then anything that you can get the source code for is Open Source. This is most definitely not the case, as illustrated by my previous example of Windows 2000. Please see [0] and [1] for more info. Confusingly, there are still copies of the W2K source on github which have an MIT license in the root which is, I assume, false and unauthorized by MS [2]. [0]: https://news.microsoft.com/2004/02/12/statement-from-microsoft-regarding-illegal-posting-of-windows-2000-source-code/ https://news.microsoft.com/2004/02/12/statement-from-microso... [1]: https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-takes-pirated-windows-nt-4-0-source-code-offline-150415/ https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-takes-pirated-windows-nt-... [2]: https://github.com/pustladi/Windows-2000/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/pustladi/Windows-2000/blob/master/LICENSE
- patmcc 8y ago
  Whether or not it's OSI approved or not isn't relevant, but if it doesn't meet their definition or something similar (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) then it probably isn't what most of us would call open source. How about I create a license called the ABA (anyone but amazon) license. If you're not Amazon/AWS/a subsidiary, it's just the MIT license. If you are, then you have no rights to use the software. Would you call that an open source license? I wouldn't. An important point (I thought) of open source was that the rules are the same for all, whether you're using it for personal projects or the biggest business on earth, whether you charge money for it or do it for free.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  No, most people accept the OSD as the de-facto definition of "open source".
- bad_user 8y ago
  I think you've been spoiled by Open Source licenses, due to the people that actually fight for that definition. Would you consider Microsoft's Shared Source licenses as being "open source"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative#Restricted_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative#Restr...
- nunobrito 8y ago
  On my side those cases are categorised as "Public source" and the respective license terms are then labelled as freeware for most cases, as a sub-variant of Proprietary license types. The other two variants would be Purchase or Subscription. From a licensing compliance/verification perspective, being OSI approved is a good help to guide developers and reduce the effort of processing the applicable terms. For the auditor itself, the OSI stamp is OK but not something critical. Looking better, we simply don't even use the terms Open Source nor FOSS on our procedures to be inclusive of the commercial/closed 3rd party products.
geoelectric 8y ago
Between Cygnus/Red Hat and Mozilla, I've worked for open-source-based companies for 7 years of my career, and never once heard or believed "open source" in lowercase to mean "OSI-approved." I appreciate what OSI does, and do value an OSI review and endorsement, but you're seriously reaching here and trying to double-down on it. Edit: To be clear, I think the OSD captures what open source is, but OP tried to say "We haven't reviewed it, so it's not open source," not "We haven't reviewed it, so WE don't know it's still open source." Whether or not and when OSI gets around to reviewing something has zero bearing on whether something meets the OSD, even if we are going to assume that's the de facto definition. I find the idea the VP thinks we need to wait on them to deliver their judgment from on high to be, frankly, offensive. OSI didn't successfully get the trademark on "open source" for a reason, and I can read a license myself.
- bad_user 8y ago
  > Between Cygnus/Red Hat and Mozilla, I've worked for open-source-based companies for 7 years of my career, and never once heard or believed "open source" in lowercase to mean "OSI-approved." That bullshit. If that wasn't the case then Microsoft's Shared Source licenses could also be considered "open source", licenses which completely restricted commercial usage. Thankfully the world did not fall in that trap. Without a working legal definition, the term "open source" becomes (1) meaningless and (2) a legal minefield. Basically you've been spoiled by OSI approved licensing because our industry rejected anything else. We could've had a different industry and yes, all those bullshit projects on GitHub without a license are a legal minefield.

threeseed 8y ago

Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code. Not whether OSI gives it some arbitrary stamp of approval.

jkrems 8y ago
Yeah, but that's a really dangerous position to take and if they'd work with me I'd be quick to set them straight. Because that path leads to legal adventure. What you are describing is "source available", not "open source". And that's a huge difference in practice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
- tlrobinson 8y ago
  I'd add "redistribute" to the GP's definition, but the point stands that the definition of "open source" is not "licensed using an OSI approved license"
- azmenak 8y ago
  A “source available” example https://github.com/highcharts/highcharts https://github.com/highcharts/highcharts
bunderbunder 8y ago
That's a fine interpretation of the term for amateurs. By which I mean, it's probably fine to think of things that way when you're working in an amateur capacity. If you're working in a non-amateur capacity, thinking about things that way could result in unwittingly exposing yourself to more legal risk than you want.
- threeseed 8y ago
  If I am using an open source project I make sure to understand the license rather than blindly trusting some organisation. Seems pretty amateur not to do this.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
- tlrobinson 8y ago
  I don't think simply checking that the license is "OSI approved" gives you many legal guarantees. There are currently 83 "OSI approved" licenses containing a variety of terms, from aggressively copyleft to extremely permissive: https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical https://opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    I don't either. . . we might be playing a game of moving goalposts here. I was specifically responding to the observation that, "Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code.", and saying that that, while that is a workable definition, it's probably not one that most people want to use.
    - jfoutz 8y ago
      You might want to be a little tighter with that definition. You can find the source for all sorts of crazy stuff. And with that, you can modify it. Oracle or Microsoft or any other copyright holder that didn’t release that is going to be ticked off at you. There has to be some element of the author wants you to have it. I know this sounds silly and pedantic. I think there have been organizations that ignored copyright and released stuff they didn’t control the rights to. You might want to tack on something about the authors want me to have access to this.
Intermernet 8y ago
>Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code. Do you mean legally? If not, Windows 2000 is open source. If so, then that's what the OSI tries to ensure.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- icebraining 8y ago
  No, the OSD according to the OSI requires much more than seeing and modifying.
  - Intermernet 8y ago
    Yes, the OSD tries to include legality in "seeing and modifying". If you regard Open Source as just "seeing and modifying" the source then anything that you can get the source code for is Open Source. This is most definitely not the case, as illustrated by my previous example of Windows 2000. Please see [0] and [1] for more info. Confusingly, there are still copies of the W2K source on github which have an MIT license in the root which is, I assume, false and unauthorized by MS [2]. [0]: https://news.microsoft.com/2004/02/12/statement-from-microsoft-regarding-illegal-posting-of-windows-2000-source-code/ https://news.microsoft.com/2004/02/12/statement-from-microso... [1]: https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-takes-pirated-windows-nt-4-0-source-code-offline-150415/ https://torrentfreak.com/microsoft-takes-pirated-windows-nt-... [2]: https://github.com/pustladi/Windows-2000/blob/master/LICENSE https://github.com/pustladi/Windows-2000/blob/master/LICENSE
patmcc 8y ago
Whether or not it's OSI approved or not isn't relevant, but if it doesn't meet their definition or something similar (https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd) then it probably isn't what most of us would call open source. How about I create a license called the ABA (anyone but amazon) license. If you're not Amazon/AWS/a subsidiary, it's just the MIT license. If you are, then you have no rights to use the software. Would you call that an open source license? I wouldn't. An important point (I thought) of open source was that the rules are the same for all, whether you're using it for personal projects or the biggest business on earth, whether you charge money for it or do it for free.
mindcrime 8y ago
No, most people accept the OSD as the de-facto definition of "open source".
bad_user 8y ago
I think you've been spoiled by Open Source licenses, due to the people that actually fight for that definition. Would you consider Microsoft's Shared Source licenses as being "open source"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative#Restricted_licenses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative#Restr...
nunobrito 8y ago
On my side those cases are categorised as "Public source" and the respective license terms are then labelled as freeware for most cases, as a sub-variant of Proprietary license types. The other two variants would be Purchase or Subscription. From a licensing compliance/verification perspective, being OSI approved is a good help to guide developers and reduce the effort of processing the applicable terms. For the auditor itself, the OSI stamp is OK but not something critical. Looking better, we simply don't even use the terms Open Source nor FOSS on our procedures to be inclusive of the commercial/closed 3rd party products.

geoelectric 8y ago

Between Cygnus/Red Hat and Mozilla, I've worked for open-source-based companies for 7 years of my career, and never once heard or believed "open source" in lowercase to mean "OSI-approved." I appreciate what OSI does, and do value an OSI review and endorsement, but you're seriously reaching here and trying to double-down on it. Edit: To be clear, I think the OSD captures what open source is, but OP tried to say "We haven't reviewed it, so it's not open source," not "We haven't reviewed it, so WE don't know it's still open source." Whether or not and when OSI gets around to reviewing something has zero bearing on whether something meets the OSD, even if we are going to assume that's the de facto definition. I find the idea the VP thinks we need to wait on them to deliver their judgment from on high to be, frankly, offensive. OSI didn't successfully get the trademark on "open source" for a reason, and I can read a license myself.

bad_user 8y ago
> Between Cygnus/Red Hat and Mozilla, I've worked for open-source-based companies for 7 years of my career, and never once heard or believed "open source" in lowercase to mean "OSI-approved." That bullshit. If that wasn't the case then Microsoft's Shared Source licenses could also be considered "open source", licenses which completely restricted commercial usage. Thankfully the world did not fall in that trap. Without a working legal definition, the term "open source" becomes (1) meaningless and (2) a legal minefield. Basically you've been spoiled by OSI approved licensing because our industry rejected anything else. We could've had a different industry and yes, all those bullshit projects on GitHub without a license are a legal minefield.