12 ms·

I respect your right to license you product however you want, but please don't call that open source.

by smw 5y ago

bullen 5y ago
Open-source also means the source is open, what you are looking for is free and honestly nothing is free... if you have a better term I'm open for suggestions. But really open-source (as in free) is the misnomer here, it should be called free open-source, or FOSS as some correctly name it.
- e12e 5y ago
  That battle has been fought already, and the accepted term is "source available", not "open source". (And gnu adds Free or "libre" software, which is software licence in a way that tries to ensure the "four freedoms" for all downstream users of software - such as freedom zero - the right to run software (no need for eg: cryptographic signature/trusted software - without a way for the user to define trust).
  - bullen 5y ago
    Ok, fixed it elsewhere and in my brain... :/ Thx! Can't edit the comment though.
- dragonwriter 5y ago
  > FOSS FOSS or F/OSS is a combination of Free (as defined by the FSF) and Open Source (as defined by the OSI) (the last S is Software), which recognizes that the two terms, while they come from groups with different ideological motivations, refer to approximately the same substantive licensing features and almost without exception the same set of licenses.
  - hamburglar 5y ago
    Personally, while I appreciate the difference from a promotion-of-FOSS point of view, I find it obnoxious that FOSS idealists think they can dictate the usage of the generic phrase “open source” and start these kinds of arguments in threads where non-completely-free software whose source is open comes up. We haven’t all agreed on your terminology, and the argument is not “settled” except in the minds of the folks who think everyone should be on board with making this purity distinction. Some people find the distinction uninteresting and don’t need to bother themselves with the ideological argument or agree to its terminology. And trying to be the arbiters of language is not a good look for the “information wants to be free” crowd.
    - bullen 5y ago
      I agree, but let's give them "source available" and maybe they'll be more inclined to help? We all need to get out of the current legal/monetary system soon enough.
      - hamburglar 5y ago
        You give ‘em whatever you want. :) I think I’ll publish my next open source project with a license that permits no use whatsoever. Code provided for entertainment purposes only.
    - gmfawcett 5y ago
      > I find it obnoxious that FOSS idealists think they can dictate the usage of the generic phrase “open source” Since when was "open source" generic? These obnoxious idealists you're complaining about are the people who invented the term in the first place.
      - hamburglar 5y ago
        Since the several decades before a few people decided to co-opt it for strategic political reasons. You apparently don’t remember the arguments over whether they should be called “free software” or “open source.” Both terms were already in use. I grew up downloading shareware, some of which was open source and some of which was not. It almost universally came with a limited use license and a request for some money if you used it. This is how Unix started too. Limited license with open source code. You can send your changes back to us but you can’t distribute them.
        hamburglar 5y ago
        RMS has even published an essay talking about how the term “open source” is a poor choice because it has an obvious common sense definition that means “you can see the source.”
- Plasmoid 5y ago
  I've seen these referred to as "Source-available licenses". This would cover things like Mongo's SSPL. The bare reality is that it's just a commercial license.
Spivak 5y ago
Requiring attribution doesn’t make something not open source. At best this means that the example code isn’t open source.
- account42 5y ago
  Requiring attribution is not the problem, but restricting commercial use makes this not an open source license.

I respect your right to license you product however you want, but please don't call that open source.

by smw 5y ago

I respect your right to license you product however you want, but please don't call that open source.

Open-source also means the source is open, what you are looking for is free and honestly nothing is free... if you have a better term I'm open for suggestions. But really open-source (as in free) is the misnomer here, it should be called free open-source, or FOSS as some correctly name it.

e12e 5y ago
That battle has been fought already, and the accepted term is "source available", not "open source". (And gnu adds Free or "libre" software, which is software licence in a way that tries to ensure the "four freedoms" for all downstream users of software - such as freedom zero - the right to run software (no need for eg: cryptographic signature/trusted software - without a way for the user to define trust).
- bullen 5y ago
  Ok, fixed it elsewhere and in my brain... :/ Thx! Can't edit the comment though.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> FOSS FOSS or F/OSS is a combination of Free (as defined by the FSF) and Open Source (as defined by the OSI) (the last S is Software), which recognizes that the two terms, while they come from groups with different ideological motivations, refer to approximately the same substantive licensing features and almost without exception the same set of licenses.
- hamburglar 5y ago
  Personally, while I appreciate the difference from a promotion-of-FOSS point of view, I find it obnoxious that FOSS idealists think they can dictate the usage of the generic phrase “open source” and start these kinds of arguments in threads where non-completely-free software whose source is open comes up. We haven’t all agreed on your terminology, and the argument is not “settled” except in the minds of the folks who think everyone should be on board with making this purity distinction. Some people find the distinction uninteresting and don’t need to bother themselves with the ideological argument or agree to its terminology. And trying to be the arbiters of language is not a good look for the “information wants to be free” crowd.
  - bullen 5y ago
    I agree, but let's give them "source available" and maybe they'll be more inclined to help? We all need to get out of the current legal/monetary system soon enough.
    - hamburglar 5y ago
      You give ‘em whatever you want. :) I think I’ll publish my next open source project with a license that permits no use whatsoever. Code provided for entertainment purposes only.
  - gmfawcett 5y ago
    > I find it obnoxious that FOSS idealists think they can dictate the usage of the generic phrase “open source” Since when was "open source" generic? These obnoxious idealists you're complaining about are the people who invented the term in the first place.
    - hamburglar 5y ago
      Since the several decades before a few people decided to co-opt it for strategic political reasons. You apparently don’t remember the arguments over whether they should be called “free software” or “open source.” Both terms were already in use. I grew up downloading shareware, some of which was open source and some of which was not. It almost universally came with a limited use license and a request for some money if you used it. This is how Unix started too. Limited license with open source code. You can send your changes back to us but you can’t distribute them.
      - hamburglar 5y ago
        RMS has even published an essay talking about how the term “open source” is a poor choice because it has an obvious common sense definition that means “you can see the source.”
Plasmoid 5y ago
I've seen these referred to as "Source-available licenses". This would cover things like Mongo's SSPL. The bare reality is that it's just a commercial license.

Spivak 5y ago

Requiring attribution doesn’t make something not open source. At best this means that the example code isn’t open source.

account42 5y ago
Requiring attribution is not the problem, but restricting commercial use makes this not an open source license.