4 ms·

Can the license simply have a clause that user is not in Amazon, Microsoft or any public cloud provider?

by lepikhin 6y ago

senko 6y ago
Sure. It wouldn't be open source any longer, tho.
- _puk 6y ago
  There's more than one licence that's open source. Is there a reason that a new style of licence that prevents the "fork and suffocate" approach of these large companies can't be ratified as fitting with core open source values? Being dogmatic about the definition of open source, and not allowing that to evolve over time, feels like hard times ahead.
  - _puk 6y ago
    And just to build on that thought. (IMO) The only people who really care about open source are us, the philanthropic builders of said software. If we shout down those in our community who question the status quo, by simply stating "it's not open source", then we lose those people. Given the hard stance we see on open source, it's very seldom that the reply to that is "but why can't it be". An analogy that springs to mind is jslint (bear with me here..). A great idea that had true belief at heart, but was just too strict for mass adoption. JSLint started a wave of enforcement that was needed, yet the far more flexible jshint (and subsequent eslint) won out in the long run. I'm fully onboard with truly open source, and think there will always be a place for it. But feel that being all or nothing suffocates the discussion.
    - julianmarq 6y ago
      Nothing is stopping you from using your own source available license. Mongo did it, and they're doing okay. It seems like you're arguing something different: You (general you) want the distinction and, more importantly, goodwill that the "open source" label gives you, but without actually having to fit the parameters of "open source".
      - _puk 6y ago
        No, not really. I'm just asking why an innocent question along the lines of "couldn't we.." gets immediately shut down as "No, That's not open source". What is ultimately wrong with having real world limitations to a licence?
        julianmarq 6y ago
        > What is ultimately wrong with having real world limitations to a licence? Nothing? Again, Mongo is doing it, and seems to be fine. Conversely, why do you need to call those licenses with "real world limitations" open source?
  - haihaibye 6y ago
    Open source is a trademarked term by OSI, and it doesn't allow licences that discriminate based on user (even cloud mega corps) to call themselves open source. The Businesses source licence https://mariadb.com/bsl11/ https://mariadb.com/bsl11/ tries to make dual licencing easier, but isn't "open source", the term is "source available"
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > Open source is a trademarked term by OSI This is a lie. You're lying. > "Open Source" is not and cannot become a trademark. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
      - haihaibye 6y ago
        Well, I'm wrong but why are you so certain I was intentionally lying? I was probably misremembering something I read on Slashdot in the 90s. I don't think you're lying about saying I'm lying... you're just wrong (as I know my own intent)

Can the license simply have a clause that user is not in Amazon, Microsoft or any public cloud provider?

senko 6y ago

Sure. It wouldn't be open source any longer, tho.

_puk 6y ago
There's more than one licence that's open source. Is there a reason that a new style of licence that prevents the "fork and suffocate" approach of these large companies can't be ratified as fitting with core open source values? Being dogmatic about the definition of open source, and not allowing that to evolve over time, feels like hard times ahead.
- _puk 6y ago
  And just to build on that thought. (IMO) The only people who really care about open source are us, the philanthropic builders of said software. If we shout down those in our community who question the status quo, by simply stating "it's not open source", then we lose those people. Given the hard stance we see on open source, it's very seldom that the reply to that is "but why can't it be". An analogy that springs to mind is jslint (bear with me here..). A great idea that had true belief at heart, but was just too strict for mass adoption. JSLint started a wave of enforcement that was needed, yet the far more flexible jshint (and subsequent eslint) won out in the long run. I'm fully onboard with truly open source, and think there will always be a place for it. But feel that being all or nothing suffocates the discussion.
  - julianmarq 6y ago
    Nothing is stopping you from using your own source available license. Mongo did it, and they're doing okay. It seems like you're arguing something different: You (general you) want the distinction and, more importantly, goodwill that the "open source" label gives you, but without actually having to fit the parameters of "open source".
    - _puk 6y ago
      No, not really. I'm just asking why an innocent question along the lines of "couldn't we.." gets immediately shut down as "No, That's not open source". What is ultimately wrong with having real world limitations to a licence?
      - julianmarq 6y ago
        > What is ultimately wrong with having real world limitations to a licence? Nothing? Again, Mongo is doing it, and seems to be fine. Conversely, why do you need to call those licenses with "real world limitations" open source?
- haihaibye 6y ago
  Open source is a trademarked term by OSI, and it doesn't allow licences that discriminate based on user (even cloud mega corps) to call themselves open source. The Businesses source licence https://mariadb.com/bsl11/ https://mariadb.com/bsl11/ tries to make dual licencing easier, but isn't "open source", the term is "source available"
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Open source is a trademarked term by OSI This is a lie. You're lying. > "Open Source" is not and cannot become a trademark. https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.php https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
    - haihaibye 6y ago
      Well, I'm wrong but why are you so certain I was intentionally lying? I was probably misremembering something I read on Slashdot in the 90s. I don't think you're lying about saying I'm lying... you're just wrong (as I know my own intent)