4 ms·

> The argument is that open source licenses are incompatible with the kind paid license they're offering their customers. I don’t see them making that argument

> The argument is that open source licenses are incompatible with the kind paid license they're offering their customers. I don’t see them making that argument in all these points. For example they say > Crowd-sourced decisions can be bad for you Well ok that’s a valid point so… don’t do that. Crowd sourcing design decisions or code is not a fundamental part of open source. You can have open source but do all the development internally if you want to. I think they’re confusing source licensing with a development methodology.

sidpatil 5y ago
> I think they’re confusing source licensing with a development methodology. Which is why as nitpicky as it sounds, we should really be making an effort not to use the term "open source" to refer to both.
- maccard 5y ago
  There are dozens of edge cases that you can argue; is redistribution allowed, is attribution required, etc. - open source is a blanket statement and is perfectly suitable as a term IMO.
  - turbinerneiter 5y ago
    Open source is a well defined term that means a very specific thing. The definition is exactly 1 sentence long. It's not a blanket term at all. Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. There is other similar things, like source available, or stricter subsets like Free Software. And there is many things associated with open source, like collaborative development in public, community building and so on.
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      > Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. That's how some people define open source. Other people use it to mean being able to see the source.
      - turbinerneiter 5y ago
        They are wrong. The term for that is source available. There is absolutely no reason to have any doubt about the true meaning of the term when this definition is on every search result on Googles first page, in Wikipedia, when it's that name of a non-profit that defines it like that and when the page that literally is called opensource.org defines it like that.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
        Having a domain name doesn’t mean you own a term.
        turbinerneiter 5y ago
        Find me a reputable source on the same level as Wikipedia, the open source foundation or red hat that defines open source in a different way. This is not about owning a term, it's simply about the fact that term had a definition that people agree on. The fact that some people don't know about that definition or that some people don't agree with it doesn't change it.
        rpdillon 5y ago
        A term with no agreed meaning has limited utility. We have an official definition. I don't understand how the community benefits from making the definition more ambiguous and murky. Is there a group that's heavily invested conflating open source with source-available? I just don't understand who wins in that scenario.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
    - zepto 5y ago
      > redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. This is certainly not a universally accepted definition. ‘Open source’ has long been a generic term for any situation in which the source is available. People may want it to be a term of art with a technical definition, but that isn’t how it is used in general.
Conan_Kudo 5y ago
Lua is an example of open source licensing with closed development process. SQLite is similar (though public domain instead of OSS code). It's a pretty poor justification to say OSS itself is bad for Wolfram based on that.
msla 5y ago
> I think they’re confusing source licensing with a development methodology. I'm a suspicious, cynical person, so I think that's deliberate. Conflation is a very useful rhetorical trick.

sidpatil 5y ago

> I think they’re confusing source licensing with a development methodology. Which is why as nitpicky as it sounds, we should really be making an effort not to use the term "open source" to refer to both.

maccard 5y ago
There are dozens of edge cases that you can argue; is redistribution allowed, is attribution required, etc. - open source is a blanket statement and is perfectly suitable as a term IMO.
- turbinerneiter 5y ago
  Open source is a well defined term that means a very specific thing. The definition is exactly 1 sentence long. It's not a blanket term at all. Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. There is other similar things, like source available, or stricter subsets like Free Software. And there is many things associated with open source, like collaborative development in public, community building and so on.
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    > Something is Open Sources if the code is published under a license that grants the user the right to study, change and redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. That's how some people define open source. Other people use it to mean being able to see the source.
    - turbinerneiter 5y ago
      They are wrong. The term for that is source available. There is absolutely no reason to have any doubt about the true meaning of the term when this definition is on every search result on Googles first page, in Wikipedia, when it's that name of a non-profit that defines it like that and when the page that literally is called opensource.org defines it like that.
      - chrisseaton 5y ago
        Having a domain name doesn’t mean you own a term.
        turbinerneiter 5y ago
        Find me a reputable source on the same level as Wikipedia, the open source foundation or red hat that defines open source in a different way. This is not about owning a term, it's simply about the fact that term had a definition that people agree on. The fact that some people don't know about that definition or that some people don't agree with it doesn't change it.
        rpdillon 5y ago
        A term with no agreed meaning has limited utility. We have an official definition. I don't understand how the community benefits from making the definition more ambiguous and murky. Is there a group that's heavily invested conflating open source with source-available? I just don't understand who wins in that scenario.
        chrisseaton 5y ago
  - zepto 5y ago
    > redistribute to anyone and for any purpose. This is certainly not a universally accepted definition. ‘Open source’ has long been a generic term for any situation in which the source is available. People may want it to be a term of art with a technical definition, but that isn’t how it is used in general.

Conan_Kudo 5y ago

Lua is an example of open source licensing with closed development process. SQLite is similar (though public domain instead of OSS code). It's a pretty poor justification to say OSS itself is bad for Wolfram based on that.

msla 5y ago

> I think they’re confusing source licensing with a development methodology. I'm a suspicious, cynical person, so I think that's deliberate. Conflation is a very useful rhetorical trick.