6 ms·

Aseprite isn't opensource so, LibreSprite is the last commit that was open source.

by iFire 6y ago

Deukhoofd 6y ago
Aseprite is open source: https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/ https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/ It's just under a proprietary license.
- danShumway 6y ago
  Usually when people use the term "open source", they'll be referring to an OSI-approved definition. I do distinguish between open source (lowercase) and Open Source (uppercase) but I'm in a minority on that point, most of your readers won't. In general, "source available" or "shared source" are terms that will lead to less confusion in situations like this. In terms of proprietary licenses, Aseprite is very good. It's one of the very, very few proprietary software products that I allow myself to use while developing games. But calling it open source is at best going to spark some disagreement/confusion, and at worst going to spark some needless debate from people (like me) who believe that the FOSS community needs to more closely guard how those terms are used and abused online. Note that the main Aseprite dev also doesn't use the words "open source" when describing its changed license: https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/ https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I don't know why OSI should get to define what 'Open Source' is.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      Because they had a criteria and they conducted a review of lots of licenses. It's not any less "gatekeepery" if some random person or company takes their random license and says "here, we say this one license is open source based on our own criteria that we invented for ourselves, accept it."
      - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
        You're confused. A person or company claiming some term indeed applies to something is not gate keeping. It's when the opposite happens, when a person or company denies you use of that term, for arbitrary reasons. So, I'd say OSI is, by definition, designed to be the gatekeepers of "Open Source".
        chrisseaton 6y ago
        Unfortunately they don't own the term and can't tell anyone what to do with it.
        cycloptic 6y ago
        You're right, but that misses the point, they put in the work to define and promote the term over a span of more than 20 years. If your plan is to undo that 20 years worth of work, you had better be prepared to take on the same amount of work over the same time span, and I hope the only reason it's done is because we can verifiably prove the results will be better for everyone.
        danShumway 6y ago
        But fortunately, the overall community including the vast majority of people involved in packaging and distributing Open Source software agree with them, and in a lot of ways they do own the term and they do get to tell people what they can do with it. You can go argue with every major Linux distro, the Homebrew devs, package managers, and most key Open Source advocates if you want. Get them to change their definitions and the software they accept, and then maybe you'll have a point. But in the meantime, you shouldn't be surprised when the community lashes out at you for appropriating decades of PR and public education just because you don't like that the definition we've always used to describe ourselves doesn't fit a particular business model. OSI/GNU have authority on this subject because we the community grant them authority. We're not interested in people coming in and leeching off the goodwill of Open Source while simultaneously restricting users' rights. We are as a community guarding our terminology because our terms have value, and OSI is the standardized, commonly understood definition that we have advocated for. If you want to call that gatekeeping, I don't care. I don't want Open Source to be like the "organic" aisle at the grocery store, I want it to mean something specific.
- boogies 6y ago
  That’s often called “source available”. It does not meet the Open Source Definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition) or the guidelines that was based on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...) or the original Free Software Definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition).
  - blondin 6y ago
    so, what's the big difference between source available and open source?
    - zeta0134 6y ago
      The biggest difference in Aesprite's case is a limit on distribution. From their own blog post on the subject: > [The new EULA] still gives you the possibility to compile and modify the program for your own purposes, but it doesn’t allow you to redistribute Aseprite. Fully open source licenses do not restrict the end user's freedoms in this way; rather, they generally encourage (and sometimes require) sharing source code modifications so the larger community can benefit from your work. This tends to be at odds with some commercial models (especially the "sell copies of software" model) so there's much debate about when each type of license is most appropriate.

Aseprite isn't opensource so, LibreSprite is the last commit that was open source.

by iFire 6y ago

Aseprite isn't opensource so, LibreSprite is the last commit that was open source.

Aseprite is open source: https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/ https://github.com/aseprite/aseprite/ It's just under a proprietary license.

danShumway 6y ago
Usually when people use the term "open source", they'll be referring to an OSI-approved definition. I do distinguish between open source (lowercase) and Open Source (uppercase) but I'm in a minority on that point, most of your readers won't. In general, "source available" or "shared source" are terms that will lead to less confusion in situations like this. In terms of proprietary licenses, Aseprite is very good. It's one of the very, very few proprietary software products that I allow myself to use while developing games. But calling it open source is at best going to spark some disagreement/confusion, and at worst going to spark some needless debate from people (like me) who believe that the FOSS community needs to more closely guard how those terms are used and abused online. Note that the main Aseprite dev also doesn't use the words "open source" when describing its changed license: https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/ https://dev.aseprite.org/2016/09/01/new-source-code-license/
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I don't know why OSI should get to define what 'Open Source' is.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    Because they had a criteria and they conducted a review of lots of licenses. It's not any less "gatekeepery" if some random person or company takes their random license and says "here, we say this one license is open source based on our own criteria that we invented for ourselves, accept it."
    - xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
      You're confused. A person or company claiming some term indeed applies to something is not gate keeping. It's when the opposite happens, when a person or company denies you use of that term, for arbitrary reasons. So, I'd say OSI is, by definition, designed to be the gatekeepers of "Open Source".
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        Unfortunately they don't own the term and can't tell anyone what to do with it.
        cycloptic 6y ago
        You're right, but that misses the point, they put in the work to define and promote the term over a span of more than 20 years. If your plan is to undo that 20 years worth of work, you had better be prepared to take on the same amount of work over the same time span, and I hope the only reason it's done is because we can verifiably prove the results will be better for everyone.
        danShumway 6y ago
        But fortunately, the overall community including the vast majority of people involved in packaging and distributing Open Source software agree with them, and in a lot of ways they do own the term and they do get to tell people what they can do with it. You can go argue with every major Linux distro, the Homebrew devs, package managers, and most key Open Source advocates if you want. Get them to change their definitions and the software they accept, and then maybe you'll have a point. But in the meantime, you shouldn't be surprised when the community lashes out at you for appropriating decades of PR and public education just because you don't like that the definition we've always used to describe ourselves doesn't fit a particular business model. OSI/GNU have authority on this subject because we the community grant them authority. We're not interested in people coming in and leeching off the goodwill of Open Source while simultaneously restricting users' rights. We are as a community guarding our terminology because our terms have value, and OSI is the standardized, commonly understood definition that we have advocated for. If you want to call that gatekeeping, I don't care. I don't want Open Source to be like the "organic" aisle at the grocery store, I want it to mean something specific.
boogies 6y ago
That’s often called “source available”. It does not meet the Open Source Definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition) or the guidelines that was based on (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...) or the original Free Software Definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition).
- blondin 6y ago
  so, what's the big difference between source available and open source?
  - zeta0134 6y ago
    The biggest difference in Aesprite's case is a limit on distribution. From their own blog post on the subject: > [The new EULA] still gives you the possibility to compile and modify the program for your own purposes, but it doesn’t allow you to redistribute Aseprite. Fully open source licenses do not restrict the end user's freedoms in this way; rather, they generally encourage (and sometimes require) sharing source code modifications so the larger community can benefit from your work. This tends to be at odds with some commercial models (especially the "sell copies of software" model) so there's much debate about when each type of license is most appropriate.