6 ms·

No, it’s not open source. Period. Why are people trying to argue black is white? https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd The OSD was created pre

No, it’s not open source. Period. Why are people trying to argue black is white? https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd The OSD was created precisely to prevent this kind of underhanded twisting of words. Want to use a non-open license, go for it! But find your own phrase to describe it. “Open source” is taken.

unethical_ban 4y ago
Alright, "sustainably developed".
varispeed 4y ago
Look at the Sponsors list - it proves my point. That term has been hijacked by big corporations to ensure they have free access to projects created by community without remunerating the authors.
- rascul 4y ago
  A number of those big corporations on the sponsors list publish open source software and/or contribute to open source projects. I don't know how many, but there's several I recognized (Google, Microsoft, GitHub, Comcast, Indeed).
- ebiester 4y ago
  AGPL is open source but in no way business-friendly. This is much earlier than sponsorship and goes to Stallman’s Freedom 0. You’re looking for “source-available.”
- clcaev 4y ago
  The open source definition originates from Debian, driven by quite thoughtful industry practitioners. Yes, permissive open source licenses tend to benefit large industry players. However, you have it backwards. We promoted these licenses to these industry players under the "Open Source" label so that we could use and contribute to free software at our day jobs, rather than being locked into a proprietary landscape. It seems you are solving a different problem.
- jahewson 4y ago
  That’s a different angle though - you’re saying that open source has limitations if you’re an author wanting to commercially exploit it. That’s true. I don’t think that “corporations want stuff for free” really holds - they have waaaay more money than anybody and throw it around all the time. I think it’s more like, if it’s free for the taking, then why not? On the other hand, making stuff expensive is a great way to set up a barrier so that only corporations can use it. Beyond security and interoperability I don’t see the point in projects that anyone can contribute to but only one person can profit from. Why would I contribute? I always felt this way about dual-license GPL code. It has a first-mover effect that sucks all the air out of the room for someone to create a project with more liberal licensing. How am I to set up a rival project if I don’t also want to be your business rival?
  - varispeed 4y ago
    In my country volunteering at for profit organisation is illegal. Which this essentially becomes if you allow for profit corporations to use the open source software without remuneration. That being said, if you contribute to an open source dual licensed project, you should be getting a share of the revenue coming from corporations paying for the license. Your idea of free software is similar to that in the music industry, where corporations want to pay for the content in "exposure". Another thing - that comes back to my first point - is that if we allow open source contributors to not be compensated, when their projects are being used commercially, we are creating inequality, where only privileged people who can afford to commit their time for free contribute to these projects, get recognition and then subsequently may be looking at getting better jobs than those who cannot afford to contribute, because they come from poor background and need to be in paid work in order to live. In my country, when unpaid internships were legal, they were usually taken by white kids from privileged middle class families, who could pay for their food and accommodation. They were getting experience and better start in life than their poor peers. Your idea of open source enforces inequality and is wrong!
    - imtringued 4y ago
      Wow, so you're saying that the government will send interns to court and possibly jail?
imtringued 4y ago
Ok my hypothetical project isn't opensource, it is merely AGPL licensed with an optional commercial license.

unethical_ban 4y ago

Alright, "sustainably developed".

varispeed 4y ago

Look at the Sponsors list - it proves my point. That term has been hijacked by big corporations to ensure they have free access to projects created by community without remunerating the authors.

rascul 4y ago
A number of those big corporations on the sponsors list publish open source software and/or contribute to open source projects. I don't know how many, but there's several I recognized (Google, Microsoft, GitHub, Comcast, Indeed).
ebiester 4y ago
AGPL is open source but in no way business-friendly. This is much earlier than sponsorship and goes to Stallman’s Freedom 0. You’re looking for “source-available.”
clcaev 4y ago
The open source definition originates from Debian, driven by quite thoughtful industry practitioners. Yes, permissive open source licenses tend to benefit large industry players. However, you have it backwards. We promoted these licenses to these industry players under the "Open Source" label so that we could use and contribute to free software at our day jobs, rather than being locked into a proprietary landscape. It seems you are solving a different problem.
jahewson 4y ago
That’s a different angle though - you’re saying that open source has limitations if you’re an author wanting to commercially exploit it. That’s true. I don’t think that “corporations want stuff for free” really holds - they have waaaay more money than anybody and throw it around all the time. I think it’s more like, if it’s free for the taking, then why not? On the other hand, making stuff expensive is a great way to set up a barrier so that only corporations can use it. Beyond security and interoperability I don’t see the point in projects that anyone can contribute to but only one person can profit from. Why would I contribute? I always felt this way about dual-license GPL code. It has a first-mover effect that sucks all the air out of the room for someone to create a project with more liberal licensing. How am I to set up a rival project if I don’t also want to be your business rival?
- varispeed 4y ago
  In my country volunteering at for profit organisation is illegal. Which this essentially becomes if you allow for profit corporations to use the open source software without remuneration. That being said, if you contribute to an open source dual licensed project, you should be getting a share of the revenue coming from corporations paying for the license. Your idea of free software is similar to that in the music industry, where corporations want to pay for the content in "exposure". Another thing - that comes back to my first point - is that if we allow open source contributors to not be compensated, when their projects are being used commercially, we are creating inequality, where only privileged people who can afford to commit their time for free contribute to these projects, get recognition and then subsequently may be looking at getting better jobs than those who cannot afford to contribute, because they come from poor background and need to be in paid work in order to live. In my country, when unpaid internships were legal, they were usually taken by white kids from privileged middle class families, who could pay for their food and accommodation. They were getting experience and better start in life than their poor peers. Your idea of open source enforces inequality and is wrong!
  - imtringued 4y ago
    Wow, so you're saying that the government will send interns to court and possibly jail?

imtringued 4y ago

Ok my hypothetical project isn't opensource, it is merely AGPL licensed with an optional commercial license.