5 ms·

AGPL?

by piva00 6y ago

AGPL?

zelphirkalt 6y ago
Ah, you mean _free_ software. Why not be more specific and say that in the first place?
- detaro 6y ago
  a) AGPL (and other Free Software licenses) are also Open Source licenses, Open Source is not "BSD or MIT" b) the comment you originally reply to didn't even claim anything about licenses "requiring" links to the source, just that doing so is one quite clear way of attributing.
  - zelphirkalt 6y ago
    Would you please read exactly what I wrote, and not go and interpret things and then make claims? About (a): I wrote "usually equates", not "is by definition the same as BSD and MIT". Do you not understand, that this means "most people think of MIT or BSD licenses, when they hear open source"? So your point (a) is does not tell me anything I do not know, nor does it somehow "disprove" anything I wrote. You misunderstand what I wrote and make a failed rebuttal. About (b): Read the other comment for the parts of the OP, that associate open source with source code linking. No matter, how much open source fans claim, that free software is part of open source, it does not make it true. Open source does not contain the same garantees for freedoms and therefore cannot be a superset of free software. It is the other way around. Free software makes sure that open source requirements are met and adds requirements on top of that, to make sure user freedoms are preserved. You can go on claiming, that the free software movement is part of your open source movement as much as you want, but that does not make it true. Open source ideology is different from free software ideology and it will not be annexed by open source fans, who claim otherwise. It seems impossible to have a discussion about this on HN, without being downvoted into oblivion. Obviously there is a rather big population on HN, which does not understand the differences of the two and feels like they need to downvote any comment, that tries to differentiate or point to imprecision in wording. Please go and watch a video of Stallman explaining the difference.
    - detaro 6y ago
      > this means "most people think of MIT or BSD licenses, when they hear open source" I'd strongly disagree with that too. > Open source does not contain the same garantees for freedoms and therefore cannot be a superset of free software. It is the other way around. Free software makes sure that open source requirements are met and adds requirements on top of that, to make sure user freedoms are preserved. Free Software adds additional requirements, yes. Which is why it can be usefully thought of as a subset of Open Source: AFAIK all common Free Software licenses are recognized as Open Source licenses, and give you the rights expected from an Open Source license, whereas many Open Source licenses do not qualify to be Free Software (and do not guarantee what's expected from Free Software). Certainly in my circles, the vast majority of people working on GPLed software describe what they do as "Open Source".
      - zelphirkalt 6y ago
        You may disagree with me of course, but this kind of understanding of OSS is very very common. Most people, even software developers do not even know there is a difference between free and open source software. And as I have suggested before in another comment: Consciously check the licenses of the next 10-20 repos (or more, if you have time or motivation), which are labeled "open source" and you will very quickly see what many people think open source license to mean. I'd love for it to not be so, surely. I would like to discover, that I have, mostly dealt with a niche group of software developers, and that the broad majority in fact knows the differences. I have a hunch though, that this is not the case, as I always check the licenses of repos and almost always see MIT or BSD when its label is "open source". This is my experience on an almost daily basis on the job, but if you have good sources, please link them to me, to prove me wrong about this. As for the second part: Time for first hand source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... (quote start) "“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free software.” We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source”. To make this clear, we avoid using those terms." (quote end) People intentionally making free software do not see themselves as merely open source software making. They do not wish to be mislabeled. Is that not enough for you? I mean, what more do you need, for me to convince you, that this subset-superset-structure, you are proposing, is not according to the definition of what free software is? Now I don't know in what circles you work, but I suggest, that the people take another look at the definitions and begin distinguishing, if they have any interest in using the correct terms. Why is that important? Well, another quote from the same page: (quote start) Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't. (quote end) Thank you for now engaging in an actual discussion about the subject and bringing arguments.
- e-v 6y ago
  The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft. The vast majority of open source software licenses are also free software licenses, and vice versa.
  - zelphirkalt 6y ago
    Check out the GNU or FSF websites. Copyleft is an important part obviously, as it is the thing preventing things to be forked, modified and then license changed. Did you ever watch a Stallman talk about the 4 freedoms and how copyleft works? If not, please do so, before writing more untrue things like: "The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft."
    - e-v 6y ago
      Please don't patronize me. I am responding to claims, not judging you and will ask you to please do the same. The difference between Open Source and Free software (incidentally, I am in favour of the latter, but this is irrelevant) has to do with ethos and values, not copyleft. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html: "Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free." From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....: "The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand."
      - zelphirkalt 6y ago
        But how does any of this make it untrue, that copyleft is an important aspect, without which the freedoms are not maintained? You quoted 2 phrases, which are not wrong, but which do not argue against what I wrote before. Here are more quotes from the same pages: "Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree conditions. Microsoft does this with Visual Studio, for example." It should be quite clear, that, when I can copy a program and modify it and then release under a different license, I can circumvent user freedoms easily. Do you have any counter point to this? What exactly are you trying to tell me?
- zelphirkalt 6y ago
  For people who did not read the OP and claim otherwise: > ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, "any open source", which is unspecific and gives people the wrong picture, as in MIT, BSD. "linking the full source code" - how much clearer does the reference to link source code need to be?
  - e-v 6y ago
    Just because the OP was not specific enough (as they indeed weren't) doesn't make your claim true.
    - zelphirkalt 6y ago
      Please cite my "claim", so that I know what you are referring to.
- piva00 6y ago
  I don't mean anything, I jumped into this with an example and Free Software is Open Source Software, I gave an example of OSS (that also happens to be FS). I didn't make the first comment so reply accordingly. You are the one starting a semantical discussion.

AGPL?

by piva00 6y ago

AGPL?

zelphirkalt 6y ago

Ah, you mean _free_ software. Why not be more specific and say that in the first place?

detaro 6y ago
a) AGPL (and other Free Software licenses) are also Open Source licenses, Open Source is not "BSD or MIT" b) the comment you originally reply to didn't even claim anything about licenses "requiring" links to the source, just that doing so is one quite clear way of attributing.
- zelphirkalt 6y ago
  Would you please read exactly what I wrote, and not go and interpret things and then make claims? About (a): I wrote "usually equates", not "is by definition the same as BSD and MIT". Do you not understand, that this means "most people think of MIT or BSD licenses, when they hear open source"? So your point (a) is does not tell me anything I do not know, nor does it somehow "disprove" anything I wrote. You misunderstand what I wrote and make a failed rebuttal. About (b): Read the other comment for the parts of the OP, that associate open source with source code linking. No matter, how much open source fans claim, that free software is part of open source, it does not make it true. Open source does not contain the same garantees for freedoms and therefore cannot be a superset of free software. It is the other way around. Free software makes sure that open source requirements are met and adds requirements on top of that, to make sure user freedoms are preserved. You can go on claiming, that the free software movement is part of your open source movement as much as you want, but that does not make it true. Open source ideology is different from free software ideology and it will not be annexed by open source fans, who claim otherwise. It seems impossible to have a discussion about this on HN, without being downvoted into oblivion. Obviously there is a rather big population on HN, which does not understand the differences of the two and feels like they need to downvote any comment, that tries to differentiate or point to imprecision in wording. Please go and watch a video of Stallman explaining the difference.
  - detaro 6y ago
    > this means "most people think of MIT or BSD licenses, when they hear open source" I'd strongly disagree with that too. > Open source does not contain the same garantees for freedoms and therefore cannot be a superset of free software. It is the other way around. Free software makes sure that open source requirements are met and adds requirements on top of that, to make sure user freedoms are preserved. Free Software adds additional requirements, yes. Which is why it can be usefully thought of as a subset of Open Source: AFAIK all common Free Software licenses are recognized as Open Source licenses, and give you the rights expected from an Open Source license, whereas many Open Source licenses do not qualify to be Free Software (and do not guarantee what's expected from Free Software). Certainly in my circles, the vast majority of people working on GPLed software describe what they do as "Open Source".
    - zelphirkalt 6y ago
      You may disagree with me of course, but this kind of understanding of OSS is very very common. Most people, even software developers do not even know there is a difference between free and open source software. And as I have suggested before in another comment: Consciously check the licenses of the next 10-20 repos (or more, if you have time or motivation), which are labeled "open source" and you will very quickly see what many people think open source license to mean. I'd love for it to not be so, surely. I would like to discover, that I have, mostly dealt with a niche group of software developers, and that the broad majority in fact knows the differences. I have a hunch though, that this is not the case, as I always check the licenses of repos and almost always see MIT or BSD when its label is "open source". This is my experience on an almost daily basis on the job, but if you have good sources, please link them to me, to prove me wrong about this. As for the second part: Time for first hand source: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... (quote start) "“Free software.” “Open source.” If it's the same software (or nearly so), does it matter which name you use? Yes, because different words convey different ideas. While a free program by any other name would give you the same freedom today, establishing freedom in a lasting way depends above all on teaching people to value freedom. If you want to help do this, it is essential to speak of “free software.” We in the free software movement don't think of the open source camp as an enemy; the enemy is proprietary (nonfree) software. But we want people to know we stand for freedom, so we do not accept being mislabeled as open source supporters. What we advocate is not “open source,” and what we oppose is not “closed source”. To make this clear, we avoid using those terms." (quote end) People intentionally making free software do not see themselves as merely open source software making. They do not wish to be mislabeled. Is that not enough for you? I mean, what more do you need, for me to convince you, that this subset-superset-structure, you are proposing, is not according to the definition of what free software is? Now I don't know in what circles you work, but I suggest, that the people take another look at the definitions and begin distinguishing, if they have any interest in using the correct terms. Why is that important? Well, another quote from the same page: (quote start) Some of the supporters of open source considered the term a “marketing campaign for free software,” which would appeal to business executives by highlighting the software's practical benefits, while not raising issues of right and wrong that they might not like to hear. Other supporters flatly rejected the free software movement's ethical and social values. Whichever their views, when campaigning for open source, they neither cited nor advocated those values. The term “open source” quickly became associated with ideas and arguments based only on practical values, such as making or having powerful, reliable software. Most of the supporters of open source have come to it since then, and they make the same association. Most discussion of “open source” pays no attention to right and wrong, only to popularity and success; here's a typical example. A minority of supporters of open source do nowadays say freedom is part of the issue, but they are not very visible among the many that don't. (quote end) Thank you for now engaging in an actual discussion about the subject and bringing arguments.
e-v 6y ago
The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft. The vast majority of open source software licenses are also free software licenses, and vice versa.
- zelphirkalt 6y ago
  Check out the GNU or FSF websites. Copyleft is an important part obviously, as it is the thing preventing things to be forked, modified and then license changed. Did you ever watch a Stallman talk about the 4 freedoms and how copyleft works? If not, please do so, before writing more untrue things like: "The difference between 'open source software' and 'free software' has nothing to do with copyleft."
  - e-v 6y ago
    Please don't patronize me. I am responding to claims, not judging you and will ask you to please do the same. The difference between Open Source and Free software (incidentally, I am in favour of the latter, but this is irrelevant) has to do with ethos and values, not copyleft. From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-open-overlap.en.html: "Among all programs that are open source, only a minuscule fraction are not free." From https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....: "The two now describe almost the same category of software, but they stand for views based on fundamentally different values. For the free software movement, free software is an ethical imperative, essential respect for the users' freedom. By contrast, the philosophy of open source considers issues in terms of how to make software “better”—in a practical sense only. It says that nonfree software is an inferior solution to the practical problem at hand."
    - zelphirkalt 6y ago
      But how does any of this make it untrue, that copyleft is an important aspect, without which the freedoms are not maintained? You quoted 2 phrases, which are not wrong, but which do not argue against what I wrote before. Here are more quotes from the same pages: "Second, when a program's source code carries a weak license, one without copyleft, its executables can carry additional nonfree conditions. Microsoft does this with Visual Studio, for example." It should be quite clear, that, when I can copy a program and modify it and then release under a different license, I can circumvent user freedoms easily. Do you have any counter point to this? What exactly are you trying to tell me?
zelphirkalt 6y ago
For people who did not read the OP and claim otherwise: > ChessBase could easily comply with any open source license by linking the full source code, "any open source", which is unspecific and gives people the wrong picture, as in MIT, BSD. "linking the full source code" - how much clearer does the reference to link source code need to be?
- e-v 6y ago
  Just because the OP was not specific enough (as they indeed weren't) doesn't make your claim true.
  - zelphirkalt 6y ago
    Please cite my "claim", so that I know what you are referring to.
piva00 6y ago
I don't mean anything, I jumped into this with an example and Free Software is Open Source Software, I gave an example of OSS (that also happens to be FS). I didn't make the first comment so reply accordingly. You are the one starting a semantical discussion.