5 ms·

There's no such thing as "open source in spirit". Either something is open source, and I can use and redistribute the software per the requirements of the Open

There's no such thing as "open source in spirit". Either something is open source, and I can use and redistribute the software per the requirements of the Open Source Initiative, or I cannot. "Open source in spirit" means, in practice, "closed source, but we probably won't sue you if we like you". While that's certainly fine for a personal wiki, I would have strong qualms about using this for a business.

jonfw 6y ago
Open source isn't a term exclusively owned and defined by the OSI. You can define it however you like, but that term has long been used to describe projects that don't quite fit in OSI's box. To be clear- I think OSI has the best definition that I would like to see- but 'somewhat open source' is certainly better than nothing.
- bachmeier 6y ago
  I very strongly disagree. Historically, the whole point of open source is that you get a license that specifies your rights. You want software that you know you can use and modify even if the original author later doesn't approve. "Somewhat open source" is simply not open source in the way that term is used. (Naturally, you're free to redefine the term for your own usage, but that doesn't change anything.) Edit: Past terms used for this type of license are freeware and source available, but that doesn't make them open source.
- EvanAnderson 6y ago
  I think those of us who like the OSI definition of "Open Source" should actively push back on use of the term to mean something other than the OSI definition. I'd rather see licenses like the BSL called "source available" or some such.
  - tommoor 6y ago
    Yea, at this point we're careful to only use the language of open source where it applies, for example our editor _is_ OSI compatible
tommoor 6y ago
> There's no such thing as "open source in spirit" I guess that's down to personal opinion. I and others say there is, take a look at this article regarding the license: https://itsfoss.com/making-the-business-source-license-open-source-compliant/ https://itsfoss.com/making-the-business-source-license-open-... In the end I'm not interested in having an argument with Open Source zealots – it seems that once you make the source code of a project public there is a category of person on the internet that isn't happy until it's completely free.
- quanticle 6y ago
  By that logic, Microsoft Windows is open-source, because I can view its source under the MS Reference Source License. This is the key distinction between "Source Available" and "Open Source". Open Source is open. That means I can modify the source and redistribute my changes. If I can't do that, the software is closed source, no matter how much marketing you apply to it.
  - tommoor 6y ago
    I guess we'll agree to disagree! In the meantime I'll keep building the project and the business.
bawolff 6y ago
That's not open source in spirit... that's the opposite of everything open source stands for.
- tommoor 6y ago
  It garnered Bruce Peren's endorsement ;) https://itsfoss.com/making-the-business-source-license-open-source-compliant/ https://itsfoss.com/making-the-business-source-license-open-...

jonfw 6y ago

Open source isn't a term exclusively owned and defined by the OSI. You can define it however you like, but that term has long been used to describe projects that don't quite fit in OSI's box. To be clear- I think OSI has the best definition that I would like to see- but 'somewhat open source' is certainly better than nothing.

bachmeier 6y ago
I very strongly disagree. Historically, the whole point of open source is that you get a license that specifies your rights. You want software that you know you can use and modify even if the original author later doesn't approve. "Somewhat open source" is simply not open source in the way that term is used. (Naturally, you're free to redefine the term for your own usage, but that doesn't change anything.) Edit: Past terms used for this type of license are freeware and source available, but that doesn't make them open source.
EvanAnderson 6y ago
I think those of us who like the OSI definition of "Open Source" should actively push back on use of the term to mean something other than the OSI definition. I'd rather see licenses like the BSL called "source available" or some such.
- tommoor 6y ago
  Yea, at this point we're careful to only use the language of open source where it applies, for example our editor _is_ OSI compatible

tommoor 6y ago

> There's no such thing as "open source in spirit" I guess that's down to personal opinion. I and others say there is, take a look at this article regarding the license: https://itsfoss.com/making-the-business-source-license-open-source-compliant/ https://itsfoss.com/making-the-business-source-license-open-... In the end I'm not interested in having an argument with Open Source zealots – it seems that once you make the source code of a project public there is a category of person on the internet that isn't happy until it's completely free.

quanticle 6y ago
By that logic, Microsoft Windows is open-source, because I can view its source under the MS Reference Source License. This is the key distinction between "Source Available" and "Open Source". Open Source is open. That means I can modify the source and redistribute my changes. If I can't do that, the software is closed source, no matter how much marketing you apply to it.
- tommoor 6y ago
  I guess we'll agree to disagree! In the meantime I'll keep building the project and the business.

bawolff 6y ago

That's not open source in spirit... that's the opposite of everything open source stands for.

tommoor 6y ago
It garnered Bruce Peren's endorsement ;) https://itsfoss.com/making-the-business-source-license-open-source-compliant/ https://itsfoss.com/making-the-business-source-license-open-...