4 ms·

> 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 discussio

> 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.

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.