4 ms·

I think it's disingenuous of you to call it "Open Source" and I think the distinction matters to more people than you think it does.

swsieber 7y ago
I think "open source (but not really, there's a small restriction)" sums it up better than "source available", so I can understand framing it that way. OTOH, this is likely to never make it into distro repos anywhere. I also wonder if the author is driving to make a business out of it. So I'd make three points: 1) It does affect distribution 2) It otherwise doesn't materially affect how I would use it 3) It seems a little like asking for contributions to a proprietary project.
- d4mi3n 7y ago
  Source Available is pretty sweet if you have a paid product you'd like to do detailed audits on. Especially in regulated environments (finance, medicine, etc). Many enterprises prefer a paid service, as such contracts usually come with somebody assuming liability for data on the system and being around to resolve problems you'd otherwise need to distract an in-house team with.
  - swsieber 7y ago
    I agree. My point is more of "source available" undersells the freedoms it does give you, while "open source" just barely over-represents them, so I can understand framing it as "basically open source".
zaat 7y ago
> Conversely, Richard Stallman argues the obvious meaning of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted, although the proponents of the term say the conditions in the Open Source Definition must be fulfilled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_%22free%22_versus_%22free_and_open%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_...
- EvanAnderson 7y ago
  I fall into the "...conditions in the Open Source Definition..." camp. I think many "source available" projects ride on the coattails of the goodwill associated with the term "Open Source".
  - zaat 7y ago
    You can fall to whatever side you wish, but calling someone disingenuous for siding otherwise does not show much of, indeed, goodwill, nor is it just.
    - tssva 7y ago
      The capitalization of "Open Source" makes it a proper noun or adjective which means it refers to a specific thing. This is why the Open Source Initiative (OSI) always uses "Open Source". You know they are referring to open source as defined by them. "open source" would be referring to the general concept which depending on interpretation could include shared source. In my view using the proper vs common version of "open source" places this into a disingenuous attempt to be associated with open source as defined by the OSI.
      - zaat 7y ago
        In my view responding immediately with clear clarification of the degree of the code openness, right under the title of the website, places this into this as something which isn't remotely disingenuous. In my view seeing this as disingenuous is, quit frankly, odd. It is also goes against the site comment's guideline (as well as general sane rule) of: Assume good faith.
        EvanAnderson 7y ago
        Here's a concrete example of the connotation in action: I wouldn't have clicked thru to the comments or the project's site if the title of this posting was "Source-Available Alternative for Zapier". I saw "Open Source" and assumed, as I suspect many people did, that it was talking about the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source. Intended or not, those two words carry a connotation for a lot of people. I'd rather not see that connotation watered-down, either.
httpsterio 7y ago
Open source does not always mean free. No matter the project you still need to adhere to the license terms even if you have access to the source code.
maire 7y ago
Most companies will require legal approval anyway before you are allowed to use it. For instance, at a previous company we were forbidden to use React until Facebook changed over to the MIT license. Facebook had a poison pill buried into their original "open source" license.

swsieber 7y ago

I think "open source (but not really, there's a small restriction)" sums it up better than "source available", so I can understand framing it that way. OTOH, this is likely to never make it into distro repos anywhere. I also wonder if the author is driving to make a business out of it. So I'd make three points: 1) It does affect distribution 2) It otherwise doesn't materially affect how I would use it 3) It seems a little like asking for contributions to a proprietary project.

d4mi3n 7y ago
Source Available is pretty sweet if you have a paid product you'd like to do detailed audits on. Especially in regulated environments (finance, medicine, etc). Many enterprises prefer a paid service, as such contracts usually come with somebody assuming liability for data on the system and being around to resolve problems you'd otherwise need to distract an in-house team with.
- swsieber 7y ago
  I agree. My point is more of "source available" undersells the freedoms it does give you, while "open source" just barely over-represents them, so I can understand framing it as "basically open source".

zaat 7y ago

> Conversely, Richard Stallman argues the obvious meaning of term "open source" is that the source code is public/accessible for inspection, without necessarily any other rights granted, although the proponents of the term say the conditions in the Open Source Definition must be fulfilled. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_%22free%22_versus_%22free_and_open%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source#%22Open%22_versus_...

EvanAnderson 7y ago
I fall into the "...conditions in the Open Source Definition..." camp. I think many "source available" projects ride on the coattails of the goodwill associated with the term "Open Source".
- zaat 7y ago
  You can fall to whatever side you wish, but calling someone disingenuous for siding otherwise does not show much of, indeed, goodwill, nor is it just.
  - tssva 7y ago
    The capitalization of "Open Source" makes it a proper noun or adjective which means it refers to a specific thing. This is why the Open Source Initiative (OSI) always uses "Open Source". You know they are referring to open source as defined by them. "open source" would be referring to the general concept which depending on interpretation could include shared source. In my view using the proper vs common version of "open source" places this into a disingenuous attempt to be associated with open source as defined by the OSI.
    - zaat 7y ago
      In my view responding immediately with clear clarification of the degree of the code openness, right under the title of the website, places this into this as something which isn't remotely disingenuous. In my view seeing this as disingenuous is, quit frankly, odd. It is also goes against the site comment's guideline (as well as general sane rule) of: Assume good faith.
      - EvanAnderson 7y ago
        Here's a concrete example of the connotation in action: I wouldn't have clicked thru to the comments or the project's site if the title of this posting was "Source-Available Alternative for Zapier". I saw "Open Source" and assumed, as I suspect many people did, that it was talking about the Open Source Initiative definition of Open Source. Intended or not, those two words carry a connotation for a lot of people. I'd rather not see that connotation watered-down, either.

httpsterio 7y ago

Open source does not always mean free. No matter the project you still need to adhere to the license terms even if you have access to the source code.

maire 7y ago

Most companies will require legal approval anyway before you are allowed to use it. For instance, at a previous company we were forbidden to use React until Facebook changed over to the MIT license. Facebook had a poison pill buried into their original "open source" license.