4 ms·

> 1. MongoDB has the right to do whatever they like Well, no, obviously not. They have to stay within legal bounds. But of course they can have any obscure lic

by hannob 8y ago

> 1. MongoDB has the right to do whatever they like Well, no, obviously not. They have to stay within legal bounds. But of course they can have any obscure license that is legal if they want. The thing they get flak for is trying to deceive the public. > 2. This License Means More Open Source Code This license is only open source in a very obscure interpretation of the word. It's basically doing a lot of legal gymnastics to say "we don't want Google+Amazon to sell services based on our database, but we still want to call it Open Source". These two goals are fundamentally incompatible.

msbarnett 8y ago
> This license is only open source in a very obscure interpretation of the word. It's "open source" in the dead-obvious meaning "the source code is open for inspection". I'd argue it's all of the extra baggage that the OSI have read into the words "open" and "source" that are considerably more obscure. Neither the word "open" nor "source" implies "free for commercial exploitation to all and sundry"
- Spivak 8y ago
  The source isn't very useful if you're not allowed to run the software. Being able to compile and run the software for whatever propose you want isn't obscure.
- mindcrime 8y ago
  The phrase "Open Source" is not necessarily just the summation of the constituent words "open" and "source". "Open Source" is a unique concept with a unique meaning... and the de-facto definition of that concept, is the OSD[1]. Similarly, there are are de-facto terms for the "the source code is open for inspection" (but not otherwise Open Source) models: things like "Source Available"[2] and "Shared Source"[3]. People trying to muddy the waters are generally being intentionally disingenuous because they want the general goodwill and positive buzz associated with being Open Source, without actually, ya know, being Open Source. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative
  - msbarnett 8y ago
    > The phrase "Open Source" is not necessarily just the summation of the constituent words "open" and "source". "Open Source" is a unique concept with a unique meaning... and the de-facto definition of that concept, is the OSD[1]. The use of the phrase "Open Source" predates the very _existence_ of the OSD by years[1], so it's somewhat laughable to claim that people are "trying to muddy the waters and being intentionally disingenuous" for simply not complying with the OSI's attempt to retroactively redefine the phrase to mean something other than the conventional and obvious meaning. [1] The OSI was formed in February of 1998. The OSD had been drafted 9 months prior, in mid 1997. If, as claimed, the meaning of the phrase "Open Source" sprung forth from the ether with the OSD, then why, pray tell, is it dead easy to find uses prior to 1997 in which people are obviously referring to the ability to see the source-code and obviously _not_ referring to the ability to exploit it commercially? For instance, here's a post from 1993 on comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32/WoBvPB0U9Co/wXfpq5nEJTYJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.pro...): > If a developer wants money for shareware, paying the fee should automatically grant the user a copy of the source code for their personal use. Restrictions could prohibit modifying and redistributing binaries, but should allow distribution of "deltas" for bug fixes, etc. > Anyone else into "Source Code for NT"? The tools and stuff I'm writing for NT will be released with source. If there are "proprietary" tricks that MS wants to hide, the only way to subvert their hoarding is to post source that illuminates (and I don't mean disclosing stuff obtained by a non-disclosure agreement). Open Source is best for everyone in the long run. Or this email from 1996 (http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html): > Caldera Announces Open Source for DOS. > ... > Caldera believes an open source code model benefits the industry in many ways. > ... > Individuals can use OpenDOS source for personal use at no cost. Individuals and organizations desiring to commercially redistribute Caldera OpenDOS must acquire a license with an associated small fee. I guess somebody should travel back in time and tell them they're "muddying the waters and being intentionally disingenuous"? Or maybe, just maybe, it's the OSI that muddied the waters by trying to redefine a term to add their own ideological baggage to it.
    - mindcrime 8y ago
- binomialxenon 8y ago
  This is why "Open Source" is terrible terminology for Free/Libre software.
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    But not as bad as “free software”, which was well-established before the FSF for, and has continued to be used (even now) widely for, gratis software.
zzzcpan 8y ago
> These two goals are fundamentally incompatible. They are very much compatible. Even more so, than permissive licenses that don't protect users of services from lock in.

by hannob 8y ago

msbarnett 8y ago

> This license is only open source in a very obscure interpretation of the word. It's "open source" in the dead-obvious meaning "the source code is open for inspection". I'd argue it's all of the extra baggage that the OSI have read into the words "open" and "source" that are considerably more obscure. Neither the word "open" nor "source" implies "free for commercial exploitation to all and sundry"

Spivak 8y ago
The source isn't very useful if you're not allowed to run the software. Being able to compile and run the software for whatever propose you want isn't obscure.
mindcrime 8y ago
The phrase "Open Source" is not necessarily just the summation of the constituent words "open" and "source". "Open Source" is a unique concept with a unique meaning... and the de-facto definition of that concept, is the OSD[1]. Similarly, there are are de-facto terms for the "the source code is open for inspection" (but not otherwise Open Source) models: things like "Source Available"[2] and "Shared Source"[3]. People trying to muddy the waters are generally being intentionally disingenuous because they want the general goodwill and positive buzz associated with being Open Source, without actually, ya know, being Open Source. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shared_Source_Initiative
- msbarnett 8y ago
  > The phrase "Open Source" is not necessarily just the summation of the constituent words "open" and "source". "Open Source" is a unique concept with a unique meaning... and the de-facto definition of that concept, is the OSD[1]. The use of the phrase "Open Source" predates the very _existence_ of the OSD by years[1], so it's somewhat laughable to claim that people are "trying to muddy the waters and being intentionally disingenuous" for simply not complying with the OSI's attempt to retroactively redefine the phrase to mean something other than the conventional and obvious meaning. [1] The OSI was formed in February of 1998. The OSD had been drafted 9 months prior, in mid 1997. If, as claimed, the meaning of the phrase "Open Source" sprung forth from the ether with the OSD, then why, pray tell, is it dead easy to find uses prior to 1997 in which people are obviously referring to the ability to see the source-code and obviously _not_ referring to the ability to exploit it commercially? For instance, here's a post from 1993 on comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32 (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.programmer.win32/WoBvPB0U9Co/wXfpq5nEJTYJ https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/comp.os.ms-windows.pro...): > If a developer wants money for shareware, paying the fee should automatically grant the user a copy of the source code for their personal use. Restrictions could prohibit modifying and redistributing binaries, but should allow distribution of "deltas" for bug fixes, etc. > Anyone else into "Source Code for NT"? The tools and stuff I'm writing for NT will be released with source. If there are "proprietary" tricks that MS wants to hide, the only way to subvert their hoarding is to post source that illuminates (and I don't mean disclosing stuff obtained by a non-disclosure agreement). Open Source is best for everyone in the long run. Or this email from 1996 (http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html): > Caldera Announces Open Source for DOS. > ... > Caldera believes an open source code model benefits the industry in many ways. > ... > Individuals can use OpenDOS source for personal use at no cost. Individuals and organizations desiring to commercially redistribute Caldera OpenDOS must acquire a license with an associated small fee. I guess somebody should travel back in time and tell them they're "muddying the waters and being intentionally disingenuous"? Or maybe, just maybe, it's the OSI that muddied the waters by trying to redefine a term to add their own ideological baggage to it.
  - mindcrime 8y ago
binomialxenon 8y ago
This is why "Open Source" is terrible terminology for Free/Libre software.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  But not as bad as “free software”, which was well-established before the FSF for, and has continued to be used (even now) widely for, gratis software.

zzzcpan 8y ago

> These two goals are fundamentally incompatible. They are very much compatible. Even more so, than permissive licenses that don't protect users of services from lock in.