3 ms·
> as opposed to pragmatic FOSS Call it whatever you like, but it's not "pragmatic FOSS", it's not "FOSS" at all. It is neither free (by the FSF's definition, w
by lewiscollard 6y ago
> as opposed to pragmatic FOSS
Call it whatever you like, but it's not "pragmatic FOSS", it's not "FOSS" at all. It is neither free (by the FSF's definition, which goes back to at least 1986), nor open source (by the definition first published in 1998, derived from the DFSG published in 1997).
> for the real world
The "real world" in which Elastic's revenues, as the article points out, were $427 million last year. And please don't use this cheap rhetorical trick wherein anyone with different priorities must get back to the "real world" (defined loosely as "whatever I say it is").
- frenchy 6y ago> it's not "FOSS" at all Source? I don't remember the url, but the other day someone posted a link to an opinion posted by someone at OSI back when Elastic was thinking of getting certification that basically said: "This licence would probably satisify the OSI defintion, but it's a bad license because it's too vague and you should use the AGPL-3 instead".
- lewiscollard 6y agoI have not read the opinion you refer to, but Elastic themselves admit "it is not an OSI approved license and is not considered open source".[0] > but it's a bad license because it's too vague That has historically[1] been a reason for the free & open source communities to reject licenses; nobody wants cavernous uncertainties about what you can and cannot do under a license's terms. [0] https://www.elastic.co/blog/license-change-clarification https://www.elastic.co/blog/license-change-clarification [1] See, e.g., why the FSF rejected the original Artistic License. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ArtisticLicense https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html#ArtisticLi...