5 ms·

Just remember: a license which limits the use (even commercial use) of software is not a free software/open source license. People may use whatever license the

Just remember: a license which limits the use (even commercial use) of software is not a free software/open source license. People may use whatever license they wish, but it's important to be clear about what is (and is not) FOSS.

kemitchell 7y ago
What is and isn't FOSS is not clear and never has been, when it comes to copyleft. We could rewrite any copyleft license as a limit on use. Don't use this MPL library to build a closed, competing fork. Don't use this GPL program to build a larger, closed program. Don't use this AGPL framework to build a closed web service.
- lliamander 7y ago
  > What is and isn't FOSS is not clear and never has been, when it comes to copyleft. OSI and FSF would disagree. > We could rewrite any copyleft license as a limit on use. What is the purpose of your argument? What are you trying to achieve? Do you want a Lobjan specification of FOSS? There may be difficult cases around the edges of the definition of FOSS, but restrictions on commercial use are not one of them.
  - kemitchell 7y ago
    OSI itself hosts the best evidence that its Open Source Definition isn't clear: its license-review mailing list archives. Have a look sometime! As for FSF, their process for considering licenses is a black box. We have "What is Free Software?", published largely in response to the creation of the Open Source Initiative. But it's no more a technical specification than OSD is. I never claimed that restrictions on commercial use are "open" or "free", or that any particular license that does so is "open" or "free". I have and do claim that neither OSI nor FSF provides any clear, complete guidance on what "open" or "free" copyleft can and cannot do. Consensus within the relatively small groups of folks actively engaged with those institutions is founded in good-sounding generalities, not any rigorous definition.
    - lliamander 7y ago
      > never claimed that restrictions on commercial use are "open" or "free", or that any particular license that does so is "open" or "free". There was enough ambiguity in your statement on public-private licensing that I felt the need to make the clarification. My intention was a much a "public service announcement" as anything. > I have and do claim that neither OSI nor FSF provides any clear, complete guidance on what "open" or "free" copyleft can and cannot do. Consensus within the relatively small groups of folks actively engaged with those institutions is founded in good-sounding generalities, not any rigorous definition. A fair contention, though I might disagree. However, that does not change the fact that non-commercial licenses are not FLOSS. Both the OSI and FSF have made that patently clear. Your initial advice was fine, I just want to make sure that people who follow your advice don't confuse non-commercial source-available licenses with FLOSS.
slang800 7y ago
That is untrue. The term "free software" was effectively coined by RMS & The Free Software Foundation. It is used explicitly when referring to copyleft licenses, which restrict certain uses of the licensed software in order to protect user freedoms. You can argue that other people use the term in other ways, but the most commonly accepted definition is the one used by the FSF. The term "open source" is somewhat vague. Software that is merely "open source" is not necessarily licensed in a way that allows redistribution/modification. The only thing guaranteed about "open source" software is that you can read the source.
- throwaway2048 7y ago
  The only people looking to redefine (yes, redefine, there is no supposed ongoing dispute or vagueness about what it means to be FLOSS software) are those looking to push their own agenda, its not an honest conversation and never has been.
  - kemitchell 7y ago
    There is heaps of vagueness in both the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition, especially about copyleft. See, e.g.: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regulation.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regul... https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/14/free-to-take-freedom.html https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/14/free-to-take-freedom... There are heaps of disputes about whether licenses qualify. Check OSI's license-review list, or Twitter, or, frankly, HN.
- unimpressive 7y ago
  >The only thing guaranteed about "open source" software is that you can read the source. 'Open Source' was/is a rebranding of the term 'Free Software' to make it easier to sell to suits. Eric Raymond has said as much about his invention of the phrase. The idea that it's just about "being able to read the source" is wrong. It's not vague at all, you just didn't do your research. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

kemitchell 7y ago

What is and isn't FOSS is not clear and never has been, when it comes to copyleft. We could rewrite any copyleft license as a limit on use. Don't use this MPL library to build a closed, competing fork. Don't use this GPL program to build a larger, closed program. Don't use this AGPL framework to build a closed web service.

lliamander 7y ago
> What is and isn't FOSS is not clear and never has been, when it comes to copyleft. OSI and FSF would disagree. > We could rewrite any copyleft license as a limit on use. What is the purpose of your argument? What are you trying to achieve? Do you want a Lobjan specification of FOSS? There may be difficult cases around the edges of the definition of FOSS, but restrictions on commercial use are not one of them.
- kemitchell 7y ago
  OSI itself hosts the best evidence that its Open Source Definition isn't clear: its license-review mailing list archives. Have a look sometime! As for FSF, their process for considering licenses is a black box. We have "What is Free Software?", published largely in response to the creation of the Open Source Initiative. But it's no more a technical specification than OSD is. I never claimed that restrictions on commercial use are "open" or "free", or that any particular license that does so is "open" or "free". I have and do claim that neither OSI nor FSF provides any clear, complete guidance on what "open" or "free" copyleft can and cannot do. Consensus within the relatively small groups of folks actively engaged with those institutions is founded in good-sounding generalities, not any rigorous definition.
  - lliamander 7y ago
    > never claimed that restrictions on commercial use are "open" or "free", or that any particular license that does so is "open" or "free". There was enough ambiguity in your statement on public-private licensing that I felt the need to make the clarification. My intention was a much a "public service announcement" as anything. > I have and do claim that neither OSI nor FSF provides any clear, complete guidance on what "open" or "free" copyleft can and cannot do. Consensus within the relatively small groups of folks actively engaged with those institutions is founded in good-sounding generalities, not any rigorous definition. A fair contention, though I might disagree. However, that does not change the fact that non-commercial licenses are not FLOSS. Both the OSI and FSF have made that patently clear. Your initial advice was fine, I just want to make sure that people who follow your advice don't confuse non-commercial source-available licenses with FLOSS.

slang800 7y ago

That is untrue. The term "free software" was effectively coined by RMS & The Free Software Foundation. It is used explicitly when referring to copyleft licenses, which restrict certain uses of the licensed software in order to protect user freedoms. You can argue that other people use the term in other ways, but the most commonly accepted definition is the one used by the FSF. The term "open source" is somewhat vague. Software that is merely "open source" is not necessarily licensed in a way that allows redistribution/modification. The only thing guaranteed about "open source" software is that you can read the source.

throwaway2048 7y ago
The only people looking to redefine (yes, redefine, there is no supposed ongoing dispute or vagueness about what it means to be FLOSS software) are those looking to push their own agenda, its not an honest conversation and never has been.
- kemitchell 7y ago
  There is heaps of vagueness in both the Open Source Definition and Free Software Definition, especially about copyleft. See, e.g.: https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regulation.html https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/05/OSD-Copyleft-Regul... https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/14/free-to-take-freedom.html https://blog.licensezero.com/2018/09/14/free-to-take-freedom... There are heaps of disputes about whether licenses qualify. Check OSI's license-review list, or Twitter, or, frankly, HN.
unimpressive 7y ago
>The only thing guaranteed about "open source" software is that you can read the source. 'Open Source' was/is a rebranding of the term 'Free Software' to make it easier to sell to suits. Eric Raymond has said as much about his invention of the phrase. The idea that it's just about "being able to read the source" is wrong. It's not vague at all, you just didn't do your research. https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/osd-annotated