4 ms·

I am not hiding that we are SSPL (I am trying to defend it here :)) But to understand your concern, you are saying someone owns the (copyright or whatever legal

I am not hiding that we are SSPL (I am trying to defend it here :)) But to understand your concern, you are saying someone owns the (copyright or whatever legal structure is) term "open-source" and us using is a violation of that.

ryukafalz 7y ago
The term predates its use in software, but as used in the software industry it typically refers to the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Deviating from that isn’t illegal (they don’t own the term), but claiming your software is open source if it doesn’t meet that definition will generally earn you some blowback.
leggomylibro 7y ago
It's not so much a legal thing as an ideological one. "Open-source" is a manifestation of the idea that knowledge should be free. It's based on the belief that societies grow when people are not restricted in how they build upon our collective accomplishments. We have plenty of ways to reward innovation: patents, closed IP, commercial licensing, etc. But open source is about giving freely to the people around you, not rewards. Selective commercial licensing is fine, and it's still nice that you let people see how things work so that they can learn and suggest improvements. But it isn't open source, and it feels deceptive when people misuse the term. Open-source code is a gift, and gifts don't come with demands.
- soumyadeb 7y ago
  Gift without demand is an interesting analogy. But if you think about it, licenses like GPLv3 and AGPL do have very strong restrictions on how to use the software. Fair enough that they are not to "reward back to you" but around "how to use the gift". SSPL is essentially GPL + a small restriction on certain usage (which practically only impacts the large cloud providers). To say, this is just "source available" is not entirely fair. This is different from Oracle saying you can see DB source to do your security scan but that's all. But I get your overall point. Need to think more on how to position this so people don't feel "deceived" but at the same time appreciate the "free/open-ness" part of it. SSPL may not be the answer but there has to be a solution.
  - leggomylibro 7y ago
    Yes, but I also dislike copyleft for the same reasons. Personally, I draw a distinction between "open-source" software and the more restrictive and viral "Free Software" which Stallman argued for, but that's been argued ad nauseum. My opinion is obviously far to one side of this debate, but you said that you had users who didn't like your license. People who feel that open source is important might see extra restrictions as extra liabilities. Hey, did you ever hear about that time when IBM's lawyers had to ask for an exemption to a license which required that the software be "used for Good, not Evil"? :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not_Evil%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...
    - soumyadeb 7y ago
      Haha, this is funny.
- soumyadeb 7y ago
  Open-Source vs Free is also an interesting debate - a good read here https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....

ryukafalz 7y ago

The term predates its use in software, but as used in the software industry it typically refers to the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd Deviating from that isn’t illegal (they don’t own the term), but claiming your software is open source if it doesn’t meet that definition will generally earn you some blowback.

leggomylibro 7y ago

It's not so much a legal thing as an ideological one. "Open-source" is a manifestation of the idea that knowledge should be free. It's based on the belief that societies grow when people are not restricted in how they build upon our collective accomplishments. We have plenty of ways to reward innovation: patents, closed IP, commercial licensing, etc. But open source is about giving freely to the people around you, not rewards. Selective commercial licensing is fine, and it's still nice that you let people see how things work so that they can learn and suggest improvements. But it isn't open source, and it feels deceptive when people misuse the term. Open-source code is a gift, and gifts don't come with demands.

soumyadeb 7y ago
Gift without demand is an interesting analogy. But if you think about it, licenses like GPLv3 and AGPL do have very strong restrictions on how to use the software. Fair enough that they are not to "reward back to you" but around "how to use the gift". SSPL is essentially GPL + a small restriction on certain usage (which practically only impacts the large cloud providers). To say, this is just "source available" is not entirely fair. This is different from Oracle saying you can see DB source to do your security scan but that's all. But I get your overall point. Need to think more on how to position this so people don't feel "deceived" but at the same time appreciate the "free/open-ness" part of it. SSPL may not be the answer but there has to be a solution.
- leggomylibro 7y ago
  Yes, but I also dislike copyleft for the same reasons. Personally, I draw a distinction between "open-source" software and the more restrictive and viral "Free Software" which Stallman argued for, but that's been argued ad nauseum. My opinion is obviously far to one side of this debate, but you said that you had users who didn't like your license. People who feel that open source is important might see extra restrictions as extra liabilities. Hey, did you ever hear about that time when IBM's lawyers had to ask for an exemption to a license which required that the software be "used for Good, not Evil"? :) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not_Evil%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...
  - soumyadeb 7y ago
    Haha, this is funny.
soumyadeb 7y ago
Open-Source vs Free is also an interesting debate - a good read here https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....