3 ms·
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 do
by _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 agoNothing 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 agoNo, 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?