5 ms·
But now we need a new term to mean what "open-source" has meant for two decades, just because for some reason we wanted to be inclusive of licenses where the so
by chc 6y ago
But now we need a new term to mean what "open-source" has meant for two decades, just because for some reason we wanted to be inclusive of licenses where the source is viewable but not open for use. And once we've redefined it, we've rendered all discussion of open-source deceptive for the period where it had its traditional meaning. I don't see any benefit to this inclusion.
- jcheng 6y agoI would like a term that is inclusive of CC0.
- alexhutcheson 6y agoCreative Commons licenses aren’t recommend for software[1], but you can use the Zero-Clause BSD License[2] to satisfy the same goals as CC0. [1] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-commons-license-to-software https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm... [2] https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD https://opensource.org/licenses/0BSD
- detaro 6y agofrom [1] > Also, the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry.
- alexhutcheson 6y agoAh didn’t realize that. Thanks for pointing it out.
- GoblinSlayer 6y agoIt's applicable to software, but it's not a good software license due to reservation of patent rights. CC was designed for scientific publications, in that context reservation of patent rights has an understandable meaning, but when applied to software it takes a very different unintended meaning.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- apotheon 6y agoHow about "copyfree"? https://copyfree.org https://copyfree.org https://copyfree.org/standard https://copyfree.org/standard (I also consider anything that fits the Open Source Definition to be "open source" and differentiate things actually approved by the OSI as "OSI certified", which should in principle be a subset of "open source".)
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago> just because for some reason we wanted to be inclusive of licenses where the source is viewable but not open for use This is not true. Recent licenses trying to protect the business built on the open source code are in general, open for use: - Sentry: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21466967 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21466967 - Elastic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25833781 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25833781 I see these sorts of licenses becoming increasingly common in the future, which is why I think it's silly to continue excluding them from being called open source.
- chc 6y agoThe primary distinction in those licenses is that they're not generally open for use — they allow a carefully chosen, closed set of use cases. As an analogy, when a bar has a TV showing some preselected channel at a preselected volume, I don't consider that TV open to my use, even though I can use it for the use case the bar specifically chose to enable. I do agree that licenses like this will become more common in the future, and that's why I think it's useful to have an identifying term for them rather than making "open-source" less precise to include them. Different words for different things is good, in my opinion.
- ZephyrBlu 6y ago> they allow a carefully chosen, closed set of use cases I would argue that they prohibit far less use cases than they are open for. In any case, how would you describe these licenses? I don't feel like "source available" is an accurate descriptor in this case.
- chc 6y agoI agree. My personal term for this sort of "We're OK with little people using the software but we don't want any competition" arrangement is "private-use source license," but I wouldn't be so bold as to argue that's The Best Name. My point is just that I don't think broadening "open-source" is a good answer, because all that does is make it harder to talk about the differences in licenses.