3 ms·

open source, means the source code is available, in my opinion. I don't agree with your opinion, or the OSI, or any of the licenses you named. That might be why

open source, means the source code is available, in my opinion. I don't agree with your opinion, or the OSI, or any of the licenses you named. That might be why the license I choose doesn't include that language: https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0 https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0 Someone could put time and effort into some software, and put it out to the world to be used for decades. Some company could then use that software to make a profit, and the original author would get nothing. I don't think thats right, and I will keep raising awareness against those who have been brainwashed into thinking only business friendly licenses are open source.

capableweb 4y ago
I don't generally agree with you, and I have zero "big business" interest behind me, I don't work for anyone for quite some time. But this: > I will keep raising awareness against those who have been brainwashed into thinking only business friendly licenses are open source. is not generally a helpful perspective to have. I understand you don't agree, and you want people to understand your point of view. But if your goal is really to "raise awareness", it generally doesn't help to call other people "brainwashed". I won't call you brainwashed because you don't agree with me, not everyone needs to have the same opinion. It's possible to have a different perspective than others without being manipulated by something else.
ctrlmeta 4y ago
> open source, means the source code is available, in my opinion. Hard disagree because I have been in the open source arena for two decades and I have never seen any notable project using "open source" to mean "source code is available". A software whose source code is available is just "source available" but "open", "free", "libre" mean much more than just source code available. I am not making this up! Just look at the license terms of any open source project of repute. "Source available" is not enough for me to use a software. If a software license forbids any field of endeavour (including but not limited to commercial activity), it is no longer "open" to me anymore. Sure the source is available but it is not open, it is not free, it is not libre because it discriminates against a field of endeavour. When I make something open source I really mean "open" and any individual or organization should be able to use my software without any discrimination while agreeing to the terms and conditions set out in the license. If I really want to forbid commercial activity, then I will choose a "noncommercial" (and thus non-open, non-free, non-libre) license.

capableweb 4y ago

I don't generally agree with you, and I have zero "big business" interest behind me, I don't work for anyone for quite some time. But this: > I will keep raising awareness against those who have been brainwashed into thinking only business friendly licenses are open source. is not generally a helpful perspective to have. I understand you don't agree, and you want people to understand your point of view. But if your goal is really to "raise awareness", it generally doesn't help to call other people "brainwashed". I won't call you brainwashed because you don't agree with me, not everyone needs to have the same opinion. It's possible to have a different perspective than others without being manipulated by something else.

ctrlmeta 4y ago

> open source, means the source code is available, in my opinion. Hard disagree because I have been in the open source arena for two decades and I have never seen any notable project using "open source" to mean "source code is available". A software whose source code is available is just "source available" but "open", "free", "libre" mean much more than just source code available. I am not making this up! Just look at the license terms of any open source project of repute. "Source available" is not enough for me to use a software. If a software license forbids any field of endeavour (including but not limited to commercial activity), it is no longer "open" to me anymore. Sure the source is available but it is not open, it is not free, it is not libre because it discriminates against a field of endeavour. When I make something open source I really mean "open" and any individual or organization should be able to use my software without any discrimination while agreeing to the terms and conditions set out in the license. If I really want to forbid commercial activity, then I will choose a "noncommercial" (and thus non-open, non-free, non-libre) license.