4 ms·

You can use whatever no-evil license for your open-source project, but if you want your project to be FOSS [1], you can't. If you restrict your project from bei

You can use whatever no-evil license for your open-source project, but if you want your project to be FOSS [1], you can't. If you restrict your project from being used for evil, it'll violate the basic freedoms that proper Free licenses grant to their users. Also, check this video by Douglas Crockford [2]. ("I give permission for IBM, its customers, partners, and minions, to use JSLint for evil.") [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_and_open-source_software [2]: https://youtu.be/-C-JoyNuQJs?t=39m45s https://youtu.be/-C-JoyNuQJs?t=39m45s

seba_dos1 4y ago
A no-evil clause makes your license not Open Source either. There's no practical difference between "Open Source" and "FOSS". You probably meant something like "source available".
- verdverm 4y ago
  I think what you are actually talking about is permissioned vs permissionless licenses. We typically think of open source as the later, but licenses like GPLv3, the licenses like Elastic & Mongo (commercial restrictions), and ethics are all licenses that only grant you permission in certain situations.
- jpablo 4y ago
  OSI couldn't trademark "Open Source" and the common usage of the term (source available) has steered away from the OSI definition.
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    [citation needed] Common usage has matched the OSI definition for decades. Even Wikipedia acknowledges it [0]. There are always some people who are confused about the terms, sure, but those usually come simply from lack of exposure and experience around FLOSS communities. Trademarks have nothing to do with it; it's not OSI that owns the term, but the community that uses it and widely agrees with OSI's definition. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitio...
    - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
      In my experience, some people are genuinely confused, but also a lot of people who misuse it and argue that OSI shouldn't be the authority because they really want to call their license "open source" even though it isn't.
    - modzu 4y ago
      i don't think that's quite fair. for example take stallman's comment, linked from your wikipedia reference above, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also some proprietary programs, including Xv, and Qt under its original license (before the QPL). That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined “open source”: Linux is “open source” software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files." i wouldn't call Stephenson's confusion here a rare occurrence; "Source available" hasn't really caught on, but instead open source remains ambiguous
      - seba_dos1 4y ago
        I agree that the term isn't self-explanatory, which is why people get easily confused. I also happen to agree with Stallman there and I strongly prefer to use the term "Free Software" instead, as it highlights what's actually important. Nevertheless, the "obvious meaning" isn't how it's actually being used in communities that produce and use such software, so its actual meaning is still worth pointing out.
- Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
  > There's no practical difference between "Open Source" and "FOSS". These terms are often used as if they are interchangeable, but they are not. Source code can be open, and yet, its license might not grant the users necessary freedoms for the software to be classified as FOSS. I do agree that "Open Source" is a flashier term and much more popular, yet, when we specifically talk about project licenses, I prefer to be specific.
  - seba_dos1 4y ago
    The term "Open Source" has a specific definition which covers practically the same set of software that "Free Software" does: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd If the license doesn't grant the users freedoms, it won't match the definition. A commonly used term for software that has its source code public but isn't FLOSS is "source available".
    - wyldfire 4y ago
      I've had the (mis?)understanding that these two were not in fact synonymous as you claim. Let's just collapse on some specifics, then? Please correct any inaccuracies in the below: Licenses promoted by FSF qualify as "Free/Libre software" - GPLv2, GPLv3, AGPL. These also qualify as "Open source" per OSI. Licenses which qualify as "Open source" but not "Free": Apache, MIT, BSD-like.
      - seba_dos1 4y ago
        All the licenses that you mentioned qualify as both Open Source and Free Software. A license doesn't have to be viral (copyleft) in order to be free. See: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html and https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses
        wyldfire 4y ago
        Okay, great. So I've learned something new. But I feel like this distinction didn't come from nowhere. Did the FSF not feel the same way at some point in the past?
taffer 4y ago
The "Good, not Evil"[1] licence: Crockford started releasing his JSMin software under a custom license, which he created by adding the requirement "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" to the open source MIT License. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not_Evil%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...
guelo 4y ago
Who cares if it's FOSS or not? Neither FSF or OSI existed when Stallman enshrined his morals into the GPL, that didn't stop him.
woodruffw 4y ago
I won't argue about FOSS, as a specific term of art. But "open source" is a generic thing, without a single rightful authority that controls what it means. As a member of the open source community, I think "open source" is what we make of it. Open source didn't stem from political or technical passivity, and it doesn't need to remain passive or static. What that means is up to individuals who actually do it.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Both Free Software and Open Source Software (commonly abbreviated together as FOSS) does have a established meaning though, authority or not. Starting to include things like "do no evil" in something already established, adds confusion. "Do you mean old FOSS or new FOSS?" What you can do instead, is to come up with a new term for what you want to describe. So instead of just saying your software has a open source license, say it had a open-but-only-good-users license (whatever that means), so the rest of us don't get confused.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    For bonus points, that term already exists; the original article we're commenting on says that they're calling it "ethical source".
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    I don't think an appreciable amount of confusion is added: there's already a wide range of "approved" open source licenses that impose varying restrictions or requirements on end users, packagers, and potential contributors. AGPL, for example, is materially different in its requirements from Apache-2, and yet both are "open source." Put another way: it's not clear why the current complexity is okay, but other kinds of complexity (that accurately reflect the current ethical landscape, instead of the ethical landscape of software in the 1990s and 2000s) are not.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      > that accurately reflect the current ethical landscape, instead of the ethical landscape of software in the 1990s and 2000s This seems like it provides exactly the reason why we shouldn't have such a thing. What is the ethical landscape of the 2040s going to look like compared to today?

seba_dos1 4y ago

A no-evil clause makes your license not Open Source either. There's no practical difference between "Open Source" and "FOSS". You probably meant something like "source available".

verdverm 4y ago
I think what you are actually talking about is permissioned vs permissionless licenses. We typically think of open source as the later, but licenses like GPLv3, the licenses like Elastic & Mongo (commercial restrictions), and ethics are all licenses that only grant you permission in certain situations.
jpablo 4y ago
OSI couldn't trademark "Open Source" and the common usage of the term (source available) has steered away from the OSI definition.
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  [citation needed] Common usage has matched the OSI definition for decades. Even Wikipedia acknowledges it [0]. There are always some people who are confused about the terms, sure, but those usually come simply from lack of exposure and experience around FLOSS communities. Trademarks have nothing to do with it; it's not OSI that owns the term, but the community that uses it and widely agrees with OSI's definition. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitio...
  - yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
    In my experience, some people are genuinely confused, but also a lot of people who misuse it and argue that OSI shouldn't be the authority because they really want to call their license "open source" even though it isn't.
  - modzu 4y ago
    i don't think that's quite fair. for example take stallman's comment, linked from your wikipedia reference above, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” This is a much weaker criterion than free software; it includes free software, but also some proprietary programs, including Xv, and Qt under its original license (before the QPL). That obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend. The result is that most people misunderstand what those advocates are advocating. Here is how writer Neal Stephenson defined “open source”: Linux is “open source” software meaning, simply, that anyone can get copies of its source code files." i wouldn't call Stephenson's confusion here a rare occurrence; "Source available" hasn't really caught on, but instead open source remains ambiguous
    - seba_dos1 4y ago
      I agree that the term isn't self-explanatory, which is why people get easily confused. I also happen to agree with Stallman there and I strongly prefer to use the term "Free Software" instead, as it highlights what's actually important. Nevertheless, the "obvious meaning" isn't how it's actually being used in communities that produce and use such software, so its actual meaning is still worth pointing out.
Andrew_nenakhov 4y ago
> There's no practical difference between "Open Source" and "FOSS". These terms are often used as if they are interchangeable, but they are not. Source code can be open, and yet, its license might not grant the users necessary freedoms for the software to be classified as FOSS. I do agree that "Open Source" is a flashier term and much more popular, yet, when we specifically talk about project licenses, I prefer to be specific.
- seba_dos1 4y ago
  The term "Open Source" has a specific definition which covers practically the same set of software that "Free Software" does: https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd If the license doesn't grant the users freedoms, it won't match the definition. A commonly used term for software that has its source code public but isn't FLOSS is "source available".
  - wyldfire 4y ago
    I've had the (mis?)understanding that these two were not in fact synonymous as you claim. Let's just collapse on some specifics, then? Please correct any inaccuracies in the below: Licenses promoted by FSF qualify as "Free/Libre software" - GPLv2, GPLv3, AGPL. These also qualify as "Open source" per OSI. Licenses which qualify as "Open source" but not "Free": Apache, MIT, BSD-like.
    - seba_dos1 4y ago
      All the licenses that you mentioned qualify as both Open Source and Free Software. A license doesn't have to be viral (copyleft) in order to be free. See: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html and https://opensource.org/licenses https://opensource.org/licenses
      - wyldfire 4y ago
        Okay, great. So I've learned something new. But I feel like this distinction didn't come from nowhere. Did the FSF not feel the same way at some point in the past?

taffer 4y ago

The "Good, not Evil"[1] licence: Crockford started releasing his JSMin software under a custom license, which he created by adding the requirement "The Software shall be used for Good, not Evil" to the open source MIT License. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not_Evil%22 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Crockford#%22Good,_not...

guelo 4y ago

Who cares if it's FOSS or not? Neither FSF or OSI existed when Stallman enshrined his morals into the GPL, that didn't stop him.

woodruffw 4y ago

I won't argue about FOSS, as a specific term of art. But "open source" is a generic thing, without a single rightful authority that controls what it means. As a member of the open source community, I think "open source" is what we make of it. Open source didn't stem from political or technical passivity, and it doesn't need to remain passive or static. What that means is up to individuals who actually do it.

capableweb 4y ago
Both Free Software and Open Source Software (commonly abbreviated together as FOSS) does have a established meaning though, authority or not. Starting to include things like "do no evil" in something already established, adds confusion. "Do you mean old FOSS or new FOSS?" What you can do instead, is to come up with a new term for what you want to describe. So instead of just saying your software has a open source license, say it had a open-but-only-good-users license (whatever that means), so the rest of us don't get confused.
- yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
  For bonus points, that term already exists; the original article we're commenting on says that they're calling it "ethical source".
- woodruffw 4y ago
  I don't think an appreciable amount of confusion is added: there's already a wide range of "approved" open source licenses that impose varying restrictions or requirements on end users, packagers, and potential contributors. AGPL, for example, is materially different in its requirements from Apache-2, and yet both are "open source." Put another way: it's not clear why the current complexity is okay, but other kinds of complexity (that accurately reflect the current ethical landscape, instead of the ethical landscape of software in the 1990s and 2000s) are not.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    > that accurately reflect the current ethical landscape, instead of the ethical landscape of software in the 1990s and 2000s This seems like it provides exactly the reason why we shouldn't have such a thing. What is the ethical landscape of the 2040s going to look like compared to today?