4 ms·

If something is open source you can't complain if someone sells it. Obviously if the software is open source, everyone who buys a copy is allowed to sell the so

by eis 15y ago

If something is open source you can't complain if someone sells it. Obviously if the software is open source, everyone who buys a copy is allowed to sell the software themselves and they don't have to give the original author any money. They also cannot stop someone taking an older version of the code and distributing it. What? I really don't get why so many people don't understand that "Open Source" does not mean you can't sell it, nor does it mean you can sell it at will or whatever. It just means you can view the source. The term "Open Source" does not make any claims about monetization, it does not even say which kind of license is at play. You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source. "Open Source" is not a license. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc. are all open source licenses with very different rules. Here's a list of licenses many people consider "open source licenses": http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical http://www.opensource.org/licenses/alphabetical Conversely, you can have closed source applications which allow you to redistribute them or even sell at will. Closed source software is just more likely to have a license which is very strict about redistribution, that's all.

rmc 15y ago
You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source. Not really. It depends on the exact licence but just about every 'open source' licence, and the Open Source Definition from the OSI and the Free Software Defintion from the FSF will requite that the licence lets the people who get the software to be allowed to redistribute it. Just look at the link you provided for 'open source definition': "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:", and №1 being: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."
- cromulent 15y ago
  The OSI was founded in 1998, but companies such as SAP provided their ERP systems with full readable source code much earlier than that, and it was called "open source" (as opposed to "closed source" which was more common with COTS). However, it is explicitly forbidden in the licence to re-sell it or re-distribute it. The term pre-dates the organisation's re-definition of it for their own purposes.
  - icebraining 15y ago
    Yes, and "gay" used to mean a different thing. Nowadays the only widespread definition of Open Source is the one defined by the OSI. Using it to mean something else is deceptive.
    - cromulent 15y ago
      You may consider it deceptive, but it was and remains a common business practice for at least one very large software company. I just thought I'd point that it is possible to publish your code open source (not Open Source) and write your own licence conditions, and it happens every day, not just in the past.
    - sunnydaynow 15y ago
      I disagree. Is SAP deceptive just because one popular organization prefers another definition of open source? The OSI did not invent the term "open source". The term "open source" itself should not imply a specific license.
      - Aloisius 15y ago
        Actually, Eric S Raymond, one of the founders of OSI, was also one of the people credited with coining the term "open source" at a meeting discussing Netscape releasing source code.
      - icebraining 15y ago
        Is SAP deceptive just because one popular organization prefers another definition of open source? It's not because the OSI prefers, it's because it's the mainstream, generally accepted current definition of the word. I mean, if I sold you a "broascasting system", would you accept something that casts seeds out? The term "open source" itself should not imply a specific license It doesn't. It implies a set of conditions they have to meet. BSD, MIT, GPL, Apache, WTFPL, are all different Open Source licenses.
waitwhat 15y ago
"Open Source" [...] just means you can view the source. No. See, for example, the Open Source Definition [1] by the Open Source Initiative [2] which opens with the statement "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Wikipedia states that their "definition is widely recognized as the standard or de facto definition." [3] You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source. Again, no. The Open Source Definition states that "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software" and "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." Note that the term "Open Source" isn't trademarked [3] (YMMV), so you can call pretty much anything you want Open Source (IANAL), but that doesn't mean that anyone else would be likely to agree with you. In much the same way, I can point at the small wooden giraffe on my bookcase and call it a delicious slice of blueberry cheesecake, but you probably wouldn't agree with me and it is unlikely to taste good. Microsoft once wanted to achieve something similar to what you wrote. But even ten years ago they recognised that their goal wouldn't be recognised as "open source", and so they called their program "shared source." [4] "Open Source" is not a license. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc. are all open source licenses with very different rules. This is true as far as it goes (although the use of "very" is certainly arguable), and it is even worth remarking that open source licenses are often mutually-incompatible. However open source licenses all have certain features in common [1], and when talking about these commonalities, it is not unreasonable to use the phrase "open source license" rather than writing "GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc." each and every time. [1] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html http://www.opensource.org/osd.html [2] http://www.opensource.org/ http://www.opensource.org/ [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definition... [4] http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx
- eis 15y ago
  You are right, very good points. So maybe I was wrong but I dealt with open source earlier than the OSI came up with the definition. What they call "Open Source" is more "Free (as in freedom, libre) Software" to me. I guess my definition is outdated but I still feel "Open Source" should just mean, well... open source :) What's the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" as coined by OSI?
chalst 15y ago
"You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source." - Microsoft tried to call such a strategy open source; this was widely rejected and the approach was called "source under glass".
dlikhten 15y ago
Open source philosophy: - If you are given the binaries, you are also given the source. - You may modify the source to your liking. - You may distribute the source or a compiled version of it at will. Note it says nothing about licensing of mods and even the distribution. Each license is actually tackling how modifications and dependencies are treated. Nothing in the philosophy says you cannot sell it. At all. Nor in any os license. Remember the first analogy Stalman says: Free software: "Think Free as in Free Speech, not Free as in Free Beer."
- sp332 15y ago
  That's the free software philosophy, not the open source philosophy. Stallman makes a big deal about separating them so that people won't confuse the two, as apparently you have. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm...
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - rick888 15y ago
    "not the open source philosophy" It doesn't matter what the philosophy is, it matters what the laws says and what it allows you to do. Many companies don't want you to resell their products on ebay (their philosophy). However, the first sale doctrine says something different (the law). So while you may not like someone re-packaging and re-selling open source software, as long as they are following the license, there isn't much you can do about it.
    - sp332 15y ago
      Your main point is true, but I'd like to point out that copyright circumvents the first-sale doctrine. You're not allowed to copy and distribute works that you own, if you don't have a copyright license for the material.

by eis 15y ago

rmc 15y ago

You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source. Not really. It depends on the exact licence but just about every 'open source' licence, and the Open Source Definition from the OSI and the Free Software Defintion from the FSF will requite that the licence lets the people who get the software to be allowed to redistribute it. Just look at the link you provided for 'open source definition': "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:", and №1 being: "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale."

cromulent 15y ago
The OSI was founded in 1998, but companies such as SAP provided their ERP systems with full readable source code much earlier than that, and it was called "open source" (as opposed to "closed source" which was more common with COTS). However, it is explicitly forbidden in the licence to re-sell it or re-distribute it. The term pre-dates the organisation's re-definition of it for their own purposes.
- icebraining 15y ago
  Yes, and "gay" used to mean a different thing. Nowadays the only widespread definition of Open Source is the one defined by the OSI. Using it to mean something else is deceptive.
  - cromulent 15y ago
    You may consider it deceptive, but it was and remains a common business practice for at least one very large software company. I just thought I'd point that it is possible to publish your code open source (not Open Source) and write your own licence conditions, and it happens every day, not just in the past.
  - sunnydaynow 15y ago
    I disagree. Is SAP deceptive just because one popular organization prefers another definition of open source? The OSI did not invent the term "open source". The term "open source" itself should not imply a specific license.
    - Aloisius 15y ago
      Actually, Eric S Raymond, one of the founders of OSI, was also one of the people credited with coining the term "open source" at a meeting discussing Netscape releasing source code.
    - icebraining 15y ago
      Is SAP deceptive just because one popular organization prefers another definition of open source? It's not because the OSI prefers, it's because it's the mainstream, generally accepted current definition of the word. I mean, if I sold you a "broascasting system", would you accept something that casts seeds out? The term "open source" itself should not imply a specific license It doesn't. It implies a set of conditions they have to meet. BSD, MIT, GPL, Apache, WTFPL, are all different Open Source licenses.

waitwhat 15y ago

"Open Source" [...] just means you can view the source. No. See, for example, the Open Source Definition [1] by the Open Source Initiative [2] which opens with the statement "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code." Wikipedia states that their "definition is widely recognized as the standard or de facto definition." [3] You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source. Again, no. The Open Source Definition states that "The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software" and "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form." Note that the term "Open Source" isn't trademarked [3] (YMMV), so you can call pretty much anything you want Open Source (IANAL), but that doesn't mean that anyone else would be likely to agree with you. In much the same way, I can point at the small wooden giraffe on my bookcase and call it a delicious slice of blueberry cheesecake, but you probably wouldn't agree with me and it is unlikely to taste good. Microsoft once wanted to achieve something similar to what you wrote. But even ten years ago they recognised that their goal wouldn't be recognised as "open source", and so they called their program "shared source." [4] "Open Source" is not a license. GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc. are all open source licenses with very different rules. This is true as far as it goes (although the use of "very" is certainly arguable), and it is even worth remarking that open source licenses are often mutually-incompatible. However open source licenses all have certain features in common [1], and when talking about these commonalities, it is not unreasonable to use the phrase "open source license" rather than writing "GPL, BSD, MIT, Apache etc." each and every time. [1] http://www.opensource.org/osd.html http://www.opensource.org/osd.html [2] http://www.opensource.org/ http://www.opensource.org/ [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definition... [4] http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx http://www.microsoft.com/resources/sharedsource/default.mspx

eis 15y ago
You are right, very good points. So maybe I was wrong but I dealt with open source earlier than the OSI came up with the definition. What they call "Open Source" is more "Free (as in freedom, libre) Software" to me. I guess my definition is outdated but I still feel "Open Source" should just mean, well... open source :) What's the difference between "Free Software" and "Open Source" as coined by OSI?

chalst 15y ago

"You can publish your code open source, charge for it and still forbid people to sell it or even redistribute the source." - Microsoft tried to call such a strategy open source; this was widely rejected and the approach was called "source under glass".

dlikhten 15y ago

Open source philosophy: - If you are given the binaries, you are also given the source. - You may modify the source to your liking. - You may distribute the source or a compiled version of it at will. Note it says nothing about licensing of mods and even the distribution. Each license is actually tackling how modifications and dependencies are treated. Nothing in the philosophy says you cannot sell it. At all. Nor in any os license. Remember the first analogy Stalman says: Free software: "Think Free as in Free Speech, not Free as in Free Beer."

sp332 15y ago
That's the free software philosophy, not the open source philosophy. Stallman makes a big deal about separating them so that people won't confuse the two, as apparently you have. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.htm...
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- rick888 15y ago
  "not the open source philosophy" It doesn't matter what the philosophy is, it matters what the laws says and what it allows you to do. Many companies don't want you to resell their products on ebay (their philosophy). However, the first sale doctrine says something different (the law). So while you may not like someone re-packaging and re-selling open source software, as long as they are following the license, there isn't much you can do about it.
  - sp332 15y ago
    Your main point is true, but I'd like to point out that copyright circumvents the first-sale doctrine. You're not allowed to copy and distribute works that you own, if you don't have a copyright license for the material.