4 ms·

Didn't we already have a long discussion with "commons clause" that 1. is not sufficient to be called open source^{TM} as the term is actually used? Call it "s

Didn't we already have a long discussion with "commons clause" that 1. is not sufficient to be called open source^{TM} as the term is actually used? Call it "shared source", "visible source" or something, but open source is a well-established term meaning something else (2.) . Bad analogy: If your cellphone provider starts advertising voice for $0 as "free speech" and then goes "technically, this is what these words mean ...", you would simply say they are using these words wrong.

hjek 7y ago
> Bad analogy: If your cellphone provider starts advertising voice for $0 as "free speech" and then goes "technically, this is what these words mean ...", you would simply say they are using these words wrong. Perfect analogy. Mobile phone operators are doing exactly that in the country I live in and it annoys the hell out of me.
- hinkley 7y ago
  Free as in beer...
tasogare 7y ago
Free software licenses are considered open source, yet they contains some restrictions. Commons clause licenses have some restrictions, but there is no reason they should be excluded from the open source definition, especially when we consider why they exists and which companies they target.
- ensignavenger 7y ago
  The open source definition literally excludes commons clause licenses. And for very good reasons!
- yarrel 7y ago
  There is no part of that's true. The restrictions in the mendaciously named "commons clause" license are excluded by the FSD, BFSG and the file-off-the-serial-numbers copy of it that is the OSD. "Keep headers" or "share and share alike" are not restrictions on use, although every April first do I realise that I once again haven't sent out a fake press release about how the BSD licenses discriminate against my source file header-removal business.
hinkley 7y ago
Just because you are Bad Guy doesn't mean you are bad... guy. Just because you have open source doesn't mean you are Open Source.
janober 7y ago
That is actually what we started fair-code (https://faircode.io https://faircode.io) for to have a proper term and definition for that projects.
- ancarda 7y ago
  Why isn't AGPL listed? I believe it doesn't have protection specifically against commercialization, but it's very difficult to link proprietary software with AGPL code. Wouldn't that effectively do the same? I might have misunderstood what this is
  - janober 7y ago
    Good point. AGPL goes definitely in the direction. It is not just open-source it definitely also has parts of the fair-code spirit...

hjek 7y ago

> Bad analogy: If your cellphone provider starts advertising voice for $0 as "free speech" and then goes "technically, this is what these words mean ...", you would simply say they are using these words wrong. Perfect analogy. Mobile phone operators are doing exactly that in the country I live in and it annoys the hell out of me.

hinkley 7y ago
Free as in beer...

tasogare 7y ago

Free software licenses are considered open source, yet they contains some restrictions. Commons clause licenses have some restrictions, but there is no reason they should be excluded from the open source definition, especially when we consider why they exists and which companies they target.

ensignavenger 7y ago
The open source definition literally excludes commons clause licenses. And for very good reasons!
yarrel 7y ago
There is no part of that's true. The restrictions in the mendaciously named "commons clause" license are excluded by the FSD, BFSG and the file-off-the-serial-numbers copy of it that is the OSD. "Keep headers" or "share and share alike" are not restrictions on use, although every April first do I realise that I once again haven't sent out a fake press release about how the BSD licenses discriminate against my source file header-removal business.

hinkley 7y ago

Just because you are Bad Guy doesn't mean you are bad... guy. Just because you have open source doesn't mean you are Open Source.

janober 7y ago

That is actually what we started fair-code (https://faircode.io https://faircode.io) for to have a proper term and definition for that projects.

ancarda 7y ago
Why isn't AGPL listed? I believe it doesn't have protection specifically against commercialization, but it's very difficult to link proprietary software with AGPL code. Wouldn't that effectively do the same? I might have misunderstood what this is
- janober 7y ago
  Good point. AGPL goes definitely in the direction. It is not just open-source it definitely also has parts of the fair-code spirit...