5 ms·

These type of interpretations were actually one of the concerns within the Free Software movement when the Open Source terminology started to appear: "Why Open

These type of interpretations were actually one of the concerns within the Free Software movement when the Open Source terminology started to appear: "Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software" https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... Open Source terminology, how it was coined, was exactly to not imply that it was 'Free' in any sense, so things like BSL actually practice Open Source in the original sense.

js4ever 4y ago
Burner account created 8 days ago? So I guess you work for redpanda? For real HN users please read other comments below about why BSL is bad
- oq_computer 4y ago
  Did not mean that BSL was good, just that when you mean that something is 'real open source' you are most likely referring to the ideals of the Free Software movement in terms of what that movement meant by something being 'free'. Open Source mostly means that the source code is available and collaborative development is happening in public. From the article I linked for example, your stance is more akin to the second one: - A pure open source enthusiast, one that is not at all influenced by the ideals of free software, will say, “I am surprised you were able to make the program work so well without using our development model, but you did. How can I get a copy?” This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss. - The free software activist will say, “Your program is very attractive, but I value my freedom more. So I reject your program. I will get my work done some other way, and support a project to develop a free replacement.” If we value our freedom, we can act to maintain and defend it.