4 ms·

This will definitely be brought up, so why not from me: this is not open source by Open Source Definition standards.[1] You're free to sell your builds as comme

by oefrha 6y ago

This will definitely be brought up, so why not from me: this is not open source by Open Source Definition standards.[1] You're free to sell your builds as commercial, but if I can't compile the source code myself and use it at my workplace (assuming I'm not a journalist or any other type of listed free-to-use professional) then you're discriminating against fields of endeavor. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

tannhaeuser 6y ago
Flagging this as harrassment. I'm sick of self-proclaimed "orgs" (with unclear sponsorship) or SJWs claiming ownership of commonly used terms. OSI: speak for yourself! You in no way represent or help developers, and have no standing as an organization to decide which licensing terms someone puts on his/her work. In fact, your continued insistence on the laughable dogmatic "four freedoms" is what's helping to enslave people into platforms made from 99% open source, with only a tiny web wrapper. All the while development work gets no funding. Time to move on!
oefrha 6y ago
Replying to a now flagged and dead comment, as it's a common sentiment expressed in a rude way, and the sentiment deserves a reply: > I'm sick of self-proclaimed "orgs" (with unclear sponsorship) or SJWs claiming ownership of commonly used terms. This is revisionist history. OSI was formed and OSD was published in February 1998 immediately after the term "open source" was proposed, and OSD was largely based on Debian Free Software Guidelines which predates the term.[1][2] So the term only became popular after the "self-proclaimed org" formed and popularized it. The OSD clearly predates any so-called open source abuse, and AFAIK it was never revised due to some sort of corporate sponsorship. You can coin your own term and try to popularize it. FSF has their free software (well, that's actually a weak claim on a broad term) and libre software (much better). You can also get behind some weird term like "Open Source with Commons Clause", or just use another commonly used term, "source available" (which, granted, spans a pretty wide range on the restrictiveness spectrum, so definitely not ideal). Meanwhile, many of us get annoyed when commercial products try to reap the marketing benefits of open source but does not grant the rights we've come to expect from the term. This particular case isn't even subtle like the Commons Clause. [1] https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#The_launch_of_Open_Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...
- tannhaeuser 6y ago
  Before accusing someone of being revisionist, you really should check the facts [1]. I won't stop calling out OSI zealots engaging in harassing, brigade-downvoting, and claiming ownership of commonly used terms. [1]: http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source
  - oefrha 6y ago
    Your point being? Post found the term used in a 1996 press release, a little more than a year before the "most reputable claims of [re]-invention". A single email quoted from a blog post with a grand total of 1756 reads proves that the term was "commonly used" in 1998 when OSI started popularizing the term? In fact, the fact that the claims are commonly regarded as "reputable" indicates that the term actually wasn't commonly used at that point. Flagging you for calling names isn't harassing. Familiarize yourself with rules of this community. (Flagging comments you disagree with that doesn’t break any site guidelines — now that is harassment.)
- mehrdadn 6y ago
  I feel like the fact that their very first sentence [1] has to say this: > Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. is pretty good evidence they themselves are to blame for poorly picking the terminology. You can't really fault people for assuming words mean what they say and not going back to check the etymology. Consider it a special case of designing intuitive UIs. Which is something many pieces of software (especially open-source software...) don't do particularly spectacularly. It's kinda like picking your site to be called "Hacker News" and then yelling at people for thinking that's where the hackers that broke into their computers got their news. The associated trouble and confusion is the price you decided to pay in exchange for picking a cool (but misleading) name. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
  - bhickey 6y ago
    This isn't a compelling argument. No one says "free software" is bad branding because you're implored to "think free as in free speech, not free beer."
DyslexicAtheist 6y ago
it's for me not a show-stopper but I can see it will needlessly antagonize people. Why not just say immediately "it is a non-commercial license that allows you to look at the source code BUT [in fat bold font] NOT FOSS" - which takes the air out of anyone who may get triggered. ... This are just weasel words: > "Sure, other companies might have bigger brands and bigger sales budgets, but this is open-source. You can vet the code, in the open, and so can anyone. You know there's nothing hidden inside. Plus, future updates have all the benefit of open-source software."
- oefrha 6y ago
  Plus, future updates have all the benefit of open-source software. This part is particularly strange, because a major benefit of open source software is other people can fork and keep the project alive if the company goes out of business or loses interest. I myself have rescued abandoned projects before and just released a new version for one today. This benefit is clearly missing for this product, at least I can't see any way to revive it to keep commercial use alive without a license change.
klyrs 6y ago
This is concerning for this project especially because it's being pitched to journalists. It's easy to maintain a backdoored version and an apparently secure version. Only ship backdoored binaries, and only distribute apparently secure source. By not allowing third-party builds, you can effectively lock everybody into using the backdoored version while maintaining a pretense of openness and security. This is a critical example of why the distinction between free vs open exists.
- win66 6y ago
  A lot of these criticisms about the license are valid and I acknowledge that. I do understand it's concerning and,I use someone's words here extremely antagonizing for a lot of people to have this use the term open source when their expectations of open-source are so vastly different. And I want to address that particularly in another comment but let me address what is your misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the restrictions. I totally agree that you could have a back door and that be something possible to distribute in a binary. That's a legitimate risk. At the same time I think it's disingenuous to say that opening the source code on GitHub is not adequate protection but having some sort of third-party builds would be adequate protection against that. I think having those source code in the open is the ultimate protection against sort of backdooring. And from there anyone can download and run it using node or they can make their own binaries. And with respect to using any bineries distributed by anyone else everyone needs to use their own risk tolerance. At the same time I don't think the license that I've made precludes third-party builds with the meaning of that being other people building their own binary from the source code and distributing that for other people, I feel okay you can do that you just can't charge people for it, or use it as part of a paid service or project intended to make money, and you can't deploy it for them as part of a paid service. Unless you're already working in that organization and making this deployment as part of the ordinary course of your duties (like you can't be doing this as a contractor, and it can't be part of being contracted to work for them). One purpose of this restriction obviously is to get organizations to contract Dosyago corporation when they need help to deploy that Dosyago IP. A way to make money through consulting that's an alternative to selling per seat or per site licenses. So I definitely think the criticisms of this license are valid at the same time it's important to be clear about what actually, you know, the restrictions are and what the risks of that are. I definitely think people should exercise caution with regard to any software but they should also protect themselves against misinformation. So in that light it is I think in the interests of everyone's safety to have an informed and open discussion. That's why I'm addressing what seems to me to be a misrepresentation, and why and I'm also not bristling and anyone raising concerns about the license. I think it's perfectly valid and it totally makes sense for them to be upset about this.
win66 6y ago
I'm discriminating based on money. Like the selling of any product if someone can provide the money otherwise not. Otherwise that would be theft or IP violation or whatever it is. But I guess you don't object to purchase so much as to what you see as my misuse of a term, which you feel is very important to get right. I get that. I understand that many people feel legitimately upset when they see the word used in a way that differs vastly from their beliefs about it. I acknowledge those complaints you have, they're valid. I don't question your views, I just work from the point of view that it's a big world out there, plenty of room for different perspectives and experiences...and plenty of people with their own interpretation of a term. And there's plenty of room for different versions of a term. I don't think you or, or anyone has monopoly on the meaning of a word or whatever. We can all make our own meanings. No problem I see with that. I understand you seem to differ on this and believe it's very important to get the word to align with what you see as correct usage. And you view my use of it which diverges from that...as a deliberate bait and switch to lure people in on the false promise of an open source while I rip the rug out from under their innocent feat and charge them or deny them usage. I could say your interpretation is ungracious or ungenerous, but I don't need to. I see it as valid, from your point of view. I get you totally see it as the right way, and I'm fine with that. We see it differently and that's OK. So, ignoring the intricacies of usage because debating the fine points of terminology, of a particular usage...is not something I'm into here...maybe I can share some of the reason why I chose this, keeping in mind that I understand the license language is unpolished, and I think of it as a work in progress. I think if you're trying to make money, then you should pay. But if you're in government, you're already funded by people's taxes, so why should we tax people twice? Government may as well not have to pay a license, but they should pay me for my time if I help them deploy it and they should respect my IP by not paying someone else to provide support or service with it. Then I did what I feel is also correct and extended that "free use" exemption to other areas which I feel are widely thought of as having a "public good". Such as not-for-profits (although I'm sure not all of them are good, but again they basically live on donations), and also journalists. A bit of this is marketing and a bit of it is trying to extract value from what I've created. Maybe it's hamfisted...maybe it won't help me achieve my goal of value capture, and maybe no matter what I say you will despise my stance because you can't help but see my use of the term as an abuse of a sacred ideal meant for the betterment of mankind. I'm not really mocking you...I'm saying I appreciate your idealism, and I'm just trying to make money from what I built. But if you an indulge me to speak to your idealism for a second, I think any idealism ought to include the openness, and innocence that helps give rise to it, otherwise it might become inflexible fundamentalism, causing more harm than good. I'm not saying you're causing harm here (except maybe to your health by getting upset)...just trying to express my view that there's plenty of ways to view a term, and they're all OK. You might desire that I put some sort of disclaimer, along the lines of "Adherents of Open Source definition of Q: please note this is Open Source based on the definition of Y, but not per the definition in X, but it is called so because ...." But I'm not bothered to do that. I feel that such subjectivity is implicit in communication, and doesn't need to be made explicit unless one assumes there is A Single Source of Correctness on the Meanings of Words, published by the Ministry of Truth, 2020 edition. Again, I'm not saying you think of things so inflexibly...I suppose I'm just exaggerating to make my point another way, people have different meanings and perspectives and that's OK. At the end of the day, people need to consult the License in order to determine the terms of use. And really, if they have questions, they can ask. Like I said, maybe this is hamfisted...and perhaps I'd make more money if I slapped an MIT license on it and upsold something else...who knows? I'm just learning. Please don't try to crucify me or what I made at the altar of your oh-so-inflexible-but-undoubtedly-correct-to-you beliefs. If you stop and think about it, you might find there's a way you can use this without getting very upset...that is, if you really want. I guess you could have just been arguing for the sake of it, without any skin involved, but I choose to believe you really do see this product as useful. So if you want to discuss terms (and are not in the free use exemption) definitely reach out to me at cris@dosycorp.com I avoided replying to your comments (or the thread you started) in the main thrust of the Show peak because I saw them as overly negative and I didn't want to ruin my day by involving myself in some fight. But now the peak is over, I feel it's OK to make my view known, and maybe we can find some useful common ground. If not that's OK, and I totally understand if you simply find this infuriating and thank you for reading this far. Either way best of luck and have a great one

by oefrha 6y ago

tannhaeuser 6y ago

Flagging this as harrassment. I'm sick of self-proclaimed "orgs" (with unclear sponsorship) or SJWs claiming ownership of commonly used terms. OSI: speak for yourself! You in no way represent or help developers, and have no standing as an organization to decide which licensing terms someone puts on his/her work. In fact, your continued insistence on the laughable dogmatic "four freedoms" is what's helping to enslave people into platforms made from 99% open source, with only a tiny web wrapper. All the while development work gets no funding. Time to move on!

oefrha 6y ago

Replying to a now flagged and dead comment, as it's a common sentiment expressed in a rude way, and the sentiment deserves a reply: > I'm sick of self-proclaimed "orgs" (with unclear sponsorship) or SJWs claiming ownership of commonly used terms. This is revisionist history. OSI was formed and OSD was published in February 1998 immediately after the term "open source" was proposed, and OSD was largely based on Debian Free Software Guidelines which predates the term.[1][2] So the term only became popular after the "self-proclaimed org" formed and popularized it. The OSD clearly predates any so-called open source abuse, and AFAIK it was never revised due to some sort of corporate sponsorship. You can coin your own term and try to popularize it. FSF has their free software (well, that's actually a weak claim on a broad term) and libre software (much better). You can also get behind some weird term like "Open Source with Commons Clause", or just use another commonly used term, "source available" (which, granted, spans a pretty wide range on the restrictiveness spectrum, so definitely not ideal). Meanwhile, many of us get annoyed when commercial products try to reap the marketing benefits of open source but does not grant the rights we've come to expect from the term. This particular case isn't even subtle like the Commons Clause. [1] https://opensource.org/history https://opensource.org/history [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#The_launch_of_Open_Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc...

tannhaeuser 6y ago
Before accusing someone of being revisionist, you really should check the facts [1]. I won't stop calling out OSI zealots engaging in harassing, brigade-downvoting, and claiming ownership of commonly used terms. [1]: http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source http://hyperlogos.org/article/Who-Invented-Term-Open-Source
- oefrha 6y ago
  Your point being? Post found the term used in a 1996 press release, a little more than a year before the "most reputable claims of [re]-invention". A single email quoted from a blog post with a grand total of 1756 reads proves that the term was "commonly used" in 1998 when OSI started popularizing the term? In fact, the fact that the claims are commonly regarded as "reputable" indicates that the term actually wasn't commonly used at that point. Flagging you for calling names isn't harassing. Familiarize yourself with rules of this community. (Flagging comments you disagree with that doesn’t break any site guidelines — now that is harassment.)
mehrdadn 6y ago
I feel like the fact that their very first sentence [1] has to say this: > Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. is pretty good evidence they themselves are to blame for poorly picking the terminology. You can't really fault people for assuming words mean what they say and not going back to check the etymology. Consider it a special case of designing intuitive UIs. Which is something many pieces of software (especially open-source software...) don't do particularly spectacularly. It's kinda like picking your site to be called "Hacker News" and then yelling at people for thinking that's where the hackers that broke into their computers got their news. The associated trouble and confusion is the price you decided to pay in exchange for picking a cool (but misleading) name. [1] https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
- bhickey 6y ago
  This isn't a compelling argument. No one says "free software" is bad branding because you're implored to "think free as in free speech, not free beer."

DyslexicAtheist 6y ago

it's for me not a show-stopper but I can see it will needlessly antagonize people. Why not just say immediately "it is a non-commercial license that allows you to look at the source code BUT [in fat bold font] NOT FOSS" - which takes the air out of anyone who may get triggered. ... This are just weasel words: > "Sure, other companies might have bigger brands and bigger sales budgets, but this is open-source. You can vet the code, in the open, and so can anyone. You know there's nothing hidden inside. Plus, future updates have all the benefit of open-source software."

oefrha 6y ago
Plus, future updates have all the benefit of open-source software. This part is particularly strange, because a major benefit of open source software is other people can fork and keep the project alive if the company goes out of business or loses interest. I myself have rescued abandoned projects before and just released a new version for one today. This benefit is clearly missing for this product, at least I can't see any way to revive it to keep commercial use alive without a license change.

klyrs 6y ago

This is concerning for this project especially because it's being pitched to journalists. It's easy to maintain a backdoored version and an apparently secure version. Only ship backdoored binaries, and only distribute apparently secure source. By not allowing third-party builds, you can effectively lock everybody into using the backdoored version while maintaining a pretense of openness and security. This is a critical example of why the distinction between free vs open exists.

win66 6y ago
A lot of these criticisms about the license are valid and I acknowledge that. I do understand it's concerning and,I use someone's words here extremely antagonizing for a lot of people to have this use the term open source when their expectations of open-source are so vastly different. And I want to address that particularly in another comment but let me address what is your misrepresentation or misinterpretation of the restrictions. I totally agree that you could have a back door and that be something possible to distribute in a binary. That's a legitimate risk. At the same time I think it's disingenuous to say that opening the source code on GitHub is not adequate protection but having some sort of third-party builds would be adequate protection against that. I think having those source code in the open is the ultimate protection against sort of backdooring. And from there anyone can download and run it using node or they can make their own binaries. And with respect to using any bineries distributed by anyone else everyone needs to use their own risk tolerance. At the same time I don't think the license that I've made precludes third-party builds with the meaning of that being other people building their own binary from the source code and distributing that for other people, I feel okay you can do that you just can't charge people for it, or use it as part of a paid service or project intended to make money, and you can't deploy it for them as part of a paid service. Unless you're already working in that organization and making this deployment as part of the ordinary course of your duties (like you can't be doing this as a contractor, and it can't be part of being contracted to work for them). One purpose of this restriction obviously is to get organizations to contract Dosyago corporation when they need help to deploy that Dosyago IP. A way to make money through consulting that's an alternative to selling per seat or per site licenses. So I definitely think the criticisms of this license are valid at the same time it's important to be clear about what actually, you know, the restrictions are and what the risks of that are. I definitely think people should exercise caution with regard to any software but they should also protect themselves against misinformation. So in that light it is I think in the interests of everyone's safety to have an informed and open discussion. That's why I'm addressing what seems to me to be a misrepresentation, and why and I'm also not bristling and anyone raising concerns about the license. I think it's perfectly valid and it totally makes sense for them to be upset about this.

win66 6y ago

I'm discriminating based on money. Like the selling of any product if someone can provide the money otherwise not. Otherwise that would be theft or IP violation or whatever it is. But I guess you don't object to purchase so much as to what you see as my misuse of a term, which you feel is very important to get right. I get that. I understand that many people feel legitimately upset when they see the word used in a way that differs vastly from their beliefs about it. I acknowledge those complaints you have, they're valid. I don't question your views, I just work from the point of view that it's a big world out there, plenty of room for different perspectives and experiences...and plenty of people with their own interpretation of a term. And there's plenty of room for different versions of a term. I don't think you or, or anyone has monopoly on the meaning of a word or whatever. We can all make our own meanings. No problem I see with that. I understand you seem to differ on this and believe it's very important to get the word to align with what you see as correct usage. And you view my use of it which diverges from that...as a deliberate bait and switch to lure people in on the false promise of an open source while I rip the rug out from under their innocent feat and charge them or deny them usage. I could say your interpretation is ungracious or ungenerous, but I don't need to. I see it as valid, from your point of view. I get you totally see it as the right way, and I'm fine with that. We see it differently and that's OK. So, ignoring the intricacies of usage because debating the fine points of terminology, of a particular usage...is not something I'm into here...maybe I can share some of the reason why I chose this, keeping in mind that I understand the license language is unpolished, and I think of it as a work in progress. I think if you're trying to make money, then you should pay. But if you're in government, you're already funded by people's taxes, so why should we tax people twice? Government may as well not have to pay a license, but they should pay me for my time if I help them deploy it and they should respect my IP by not paying someone else to provide support or service with it. Then I did what I feel is also correct and extended that "free use" exemption to other areas which I feel are widely thought of as having a "public good". Such as not-for-profits (although I'm sure not all of them are good, but again they basically live on donations), and also journalists. A bit of this is marketing and a bit of it is trying to extract value from what I've created. Maybe it's hamfisted...maybe it won't help me achieve my goal of value capture, and maybe no matter what I say you will despise my stance because you can't help but see my use of the term as an abuse of a sacred ideal meant for the betterment of mankind. I'm not really mocking you...I'm saying I appreciate your idealism, and I'm just trying to make money from what I built. But if you an indulge me to speak to your idealism for a second, I think any idealism ought to include the openness, and innocence that helps give rise to it, otherwise it might become inflexible fundamentalism, causing more harm than good. I'm not saying you're causing harm here (except maybe to your health by getting upset)...just trying to express my view that there's plenty of ways to view a term, and they're all OK. You might desire that I put some sort of disclaimer, along the lines of "Adherents of Open Source definition of Q: please note this is Open Source based on the definition of Y, but not per the definition in X, but it is called so because ...." But I'm not bothered to do that. I feel that such subjectivity is implicit in communication, and doesn't need to be made explicit unless one assumes there is A Single Source of Correctness on the Meanings of Words, published by the Ministry of Truth, 2020 edition. Again, I'm not saying you think of things so inflexibly...I suppose I'm just exaggerating to make my point another way, people have different meanings and perspectives and that's OK. At the end of the day, people need to consult the License in order to determine the terms of use. And really, if they have questions, they can ask. Like I said, maybe this is hamfisted...and perhaps I'd make more money if I slapped an MIT license on it and upsold something else...who knows? I'm just learning. Please don't try to crucify me or what I made at the altar of your oh-so-inflexible-but-undoubtedly-correct-to-you beliefs. If you stop and think about it, you might find there's a way you can use this without getting very upset...that is, if you really want. I guess you could have just been arguing for the sake of it, without any skin involved, but I choose to believe you really do see this product as useful. So if you want to discuss terms (and are not in the free use exemption) definitely reach out to me at cris@dosycorp.com I avoided replying to your comments (or the thread you started) in the main thrust of the Show peak because I saw them as overly negative and I didn't want to ruin my day by involving myself in some fight. But now the peak is over, I feel it's OK to make my view known, and maybe we can find some useful common ground. If not that's OK, and I totally understand if you simply find this infuriating and thank you for reading this far. Either way best of luck and have a great one