5 ms·

Opensource has a specific definition and the definition includes: > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of

Opensource has a specific definition and the definition includes: > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. So if businesses cannot use it for commerical purpose, that's not open source literally by definition. It is not about what your line of thinking is. Words have meaning and "opensource" has a specific meaning. If you want to talk about software that must not be used for commercial purpose, there is a specific word for it too and the word is "noncommercial" which is not the same thing as "opensource".

svnpenn 4y ago
Sorry I don't respect unsourced quotes.
- capableweb 4y ago
  Basically every OSS license contains something like the following (examples from MIT): > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software > to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software Adding restrictions on who can use the software goes against the idea that the software is for anyone, anywhere. The quote above comes from OSI (Open Source Initiative): > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. For-profit business is a "field of endeavor". Restricting usage for for-profit businesses can be a good idea, but it's no longer open source.
  - svnpenn 4y ago
    > OSI (Open Source Initiative) Right. OSI is steered by business interests, and has distorted the public view of what open source actually is. So currently anything that is not "business friendly", is not open source. I reject that notion out of hand.
    - jrochkind1 4y ago
      Richard Stallman has long argued for [1] and established [2] the same thing as a requirement for open source, and I don't think anyone would accuse him of being a shill for "business interests". It's a (these days popular) rewriting of history to suggest that "big business interests" are the only reason open source definitions do not allow authors to restrict what a user can do with the software. Rather, from the start, this was seen as a fundamental freedom, the freedom to run the software as you wish rather than have to get permission from the copyright holder as to how you are to use it, where you are to run it, for what purposes. It's, for instance, been part of the GNU license since before OSI even existed, and in those days I don't think anyone would argue GNU was a tool controlled by "business interests". In fact, the reason people now don't seem to like this requirement for "freedom to run" is precisely because it interferes with their "business interests", their desire to make money from open source. That may be a respectable desire -- but open source does not conflict with it becuase of "business interests", but the opposite, because it's ethos was from the start about the rights of users to have freedom to use software, not about "business interests" in profiting from it. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
      - mrtranscendence 4y ago
        You're avoiding the fly in the ointment, which is that the definition of "open source" that is advocated by the OSI is not without controversy and does not necessarily comport with how the term "open source" is used in everyday language. (I don't really care what Richard Stallman thinks here, FWIW.) Thus it's not immediately clear to me that you can say without reservation that software with available, noncommercially-licensed source code fails to be "open source" -- as when I use "open source" I and many others mean something different from what the OSI means.

svnpenn 4y ago

Sorry I don't respect unsourced quotes.

capableweb 4y ago
Basically every OSS license contains something like the following (examples from MIT): > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software > to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software Adding restrictions on who can use the software goes against the idea that the software is for anyone, anywhere. The quote above comes from OSI (Open Source Initiative): > 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups > The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons. > 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor > The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research. For-profit business is a "field of endeavor". Restricting usage for for-profit businesses can be a good idea, but it's no longer open source.
- svnpenn 4y ago
  > OSI (Open Source Initiative) Right. OSI is steered by business interests, and has distorted the public view of what open source actually is. So currently anything that is not "business friendly", is not open source. I reject that notion out of hand.
  - jrochkind1 4y ago
    Richard Stallman has long argued for [1] and established [2] the same thing as a requirement for open source, and I don't think anyone would accuse him of being a shill for "business interests". It's a (these days popular) rewriting of history to suggest that "big business interests" are the only reason open source definitions do not allow authors to restrict what a user can do with the software. Rather, from the start, this was seen as a fundamental freedom, the freedom to run the software as you wish rather than have to get permission from the copyright holder as to how you are to use it, where you are to run it, for what purposes. It's, for instance, been part of the GNU license since before OSI even existed, and in those days I don't think anyone would argue GNU was a tool controlled by "business interests". In fact, the reason people now don't seem to like this requirement for "freedom to run" is precisely because it interferes with their "business interests", their desire to make money from open source. That may be a respectable desire -- but open source does not conflict with it becuase of "business interests", but the opposite, because it's ethos was from the start about the rights of users to have freedom to use software, not about "business interests" in profiting from it. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
    - mrtranscendence 4y ago
      You're avoiding the fly in the ointment, which is that the definition of "open source" that is advocated by the OSI is not without controversy and does not necessarily comport with how the term "open source" is used in everyday language. (I don't really care what Richard Stallman thinks here, FWIW.) Thus it's not immediately clear to me that you can say without reservation that software with available, noncommercially-licensed source code fails to be "open source" -- as when I use "open source" I and many others mean something different from what the OSI means.