4 ms·

>release their software open source instead of licensing What do you mean? Open source is not just source available.

• bayindirh 4y ago
  Open Source Science Software is generally licensed under MIT or GPL to make the source available, source code inheritable, mark the artifact as a deliverable, and make code reviewable and encourage collaboration. So the funding bodies can support you financially over the code you released, and other users can support you with improvements to make code more valuable and usable. This is beyond source available, this how Free Software is designed and dreamed to work in practice.
  • frutiger 4y ago
    Yes but GGP said “instead of licensing”.
    • bayindirh 4y ago
      I read it as "licensing in a proprietary way", or "licensing with strict copyright terms". Which is also present in some research software. You buy the source, but can't share/distribute. Only compile, customize and use.
      • sfpotter 4y ago
        This is the correct interpretation. Apologies for any confusion.
  • tokai 4y ago
    I mean this in the best way, but your comment doesn't make any sense. I'm asking sfpotter what he means by releasing something OS without using licensing. I didn't ask for an overview of free software.
    • bayindirh 4y ago
      Licensing in this context means "closed/strict licensing which doesn't provide freedoms". The code is actually licensed: https://github.com/DrTimothyAldenDavis/SuiteSparse/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/DrTimothyAldenDavis/SuiteSparse/blob/mast...
      • quietbritishjim 4y ago
        > Licensing in this context means "closed/strict licensing which doesn't provide freedoms". Maybe that's what the commenter meant but that's not what that language means. Open source licenses are, well, licenses, and if you use them then you're licensing your code. The L in GPL stands for license, for example.
        • bayindirh 4y ago
          The original commenting user verified that he/she used the term "License" as in "Strict copyright" [0]. There's no need to be pedantic over a word here. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33274282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33274282
          • Anon1096 4y ago
            "Strict copyright" doesn't make sense either. OSS licenses are just as strict as closed source ones. You can just say a "closed source license."
            • bayindirh 4y ago
              OSS licenses are generally called "permissive", "weak copyright", "weak copyleft" and "strong copyleft" (in case of GPL family) depending on the context and nature of the license implied. "Strict/Strong Copyright" makes sense.
              • quietbritishjim 4y ago
  • klooney 4y ago
    https://github.com/DrTimothyAldenDavis/SuiteSparse/blob/master/LICENSE.txt https://github.com/DrTimothyAldenDavis/SuiteSparse/blob/mast... it's lgpl or gpl, which is the point of the complaint. GitHub does a ton of work to formalize license management, it's odd that copilot ignored all of that.
• Karliss 4y ago
  "licensing" as verb is often used to mean "sell or buy (depending on context) commercial licenses". Even though releasing for free as open source also involves a software license.