5 ms·

I think there's no way to adhere to open source definition and restrict that. And it is a good thing

by scotu 15y ago

freehunter 15y ago
There certainly is. The source code is free and open, but the license to distribute your changes for money is not. There are many licenses like this, especially when copyrights are involved.
- hugoroy 15y ago
  Well, obviously you haven't understood what free software is http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
  - freehunter 15y ago
    There are other licenses besides the GPL. And you can even make your own license. It's not at all uncommon for open source projects to have a "not for profit" clause attached to their copyright.
    - hugoroy 15y ago
      I did not point you to the definition of copyleft or the definition of GPL, but to the definition of Free Software. If you read the definition of "Open Source" by OSI, or the DFSG by Debian, they're very similar and clear: the (royalty-free) license includes the right to make derivative work and publish/distribute the modifications. None of the definitions above include "not for profit" clause as valid. If you have not for profit clause or non commercial or alike, it's NOT free software or "open source". (It's "freeware" or "shareware" or whatever.) If you make your own license with such a clause, no one will consider it free or "open source." You can call it that way, but you'll just look foolish believe me.
      - freehunter 15y ago
        Ah, I see, so you can take the trademarked name of any open source project and modify and distribute the software under that name, for profit, and everyone will be okay with it. Otherwise some people will think the vendor looks foolish. I see.
        nailer 15y ago
        You're paraphrasing the parent, and seem to be confusing Open Source (which is a class of licenses) with trademarks. You're right, HP still control the trademarks. But for a license to meet the Open Source Definition, there can be no 'non-commercial' restrictions. So selling 'Foo' (derived from WebOS) is fine.But using the WebOS trademark isn't. Just like Oracle distribute and sell support for 'Oracle Enterprise Linux' - 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux' is a trademark that belongs to Red Hat.
        pessimizer 15y ago
        See CentOS; reduce sarcasm.
        freehunter 15y ago
        But is CentOS called "Red Hat"? No, it's called CentOS. With the comment I made, I was saying you wouldn't be able to release WebOS without HP's permission. Just like you can't release Red Hat without Red Hat's permission, so you fork it and use your own trademark.
        hugoroy 15y ago
        That's a totally different matter which has nothing to do with what you were talking about earlier. Trademark and Free Software are two completely different things… (unlike copyright and patent law, where the code itself is directly licensed under copyright law and has to deal with patent law; however there is almost never a trademark license…)
      - rwolf 15y ago
        None of the groups mentioned control the definition of "open source." I cannot control what looks foolish to you, but the phrase "open source" is tossed around a lot more casually on this site than you seem to believe.
    - sciurus 15y ago
      The open source definition and free software definition both prohibit a "not for profit" clause. What is something that you consider to be an "open source project" that has such a clause? http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
      - rwolf 15y ago
        That's a good question. I thought Zed Shaw had licensed lamson under those terms, but I see nothing about that on his github right now. While I can't find a use in the wild, an example of a license I would consider to be: * open source * prohibit for profit use is: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ You are welcome to say that creative commons is not open source (many people whose opinions I value highly feel that way), but it is commonly described in those terms (or at least it was when it first came out while I was in college). Also, here is a plug for the world's greatest license (I'm tragically not affiliated with the author): http://davispj.com/2010/02/19/agpl-not-awesome-gpl.html http://davispj.com/2010/02/19/agpl-not-awesome-gpl.html
        xyzzyz 15y ago
        Open Source is not only about access to the source code, just like Free Software is not only about software price. By using these terms inappropriately, you only create misunderstanding and confusion, so please don't. CC licenses are not supposed to be used as software licenses anyway.
        rwolf 15y ago
        I'm not trying to push a viewpoint--I'm trying to describe the current use of a phrase. How I feel about licenses does not change the way the phrase "open source" is used here and elsewhere.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]

I think there's no way to adhere to open source definition and restrict that. And it is a good thing

by scotu 15y ago

I think there's no way to adhere to open source definition and restrict that. And it is a good thing

There certainly is. The source code is free and open, but the license to distribute your changes for money is not. There are many licenses like this, especially when copyrights are involved.

hugoroy 15y ago
Well, obviously you haven't understood what free software is http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
- freehunter 15y ago
  There are other licenses besides the GPL. And you can even make your own license. It's not at all uncommon for open source projects to have a "not for profit" clause attached to their copyright.
  - hugoroy 15y ago
    I did not point you to the definition of copyleft or the definition of GPL, but to the definition of Free Software. If you read the definition of "Open Source" by OSI, or the DFSG by Debian, they're very similar and clear: the (royalty-free) license includes the right to make derivative work and publish/distribute the modifications. None of the definitions above include "not for profit" clause as valid. If you have not for profit clause or non commercial or alike, it's NOT free software or "open source". (It's "freeware" or "shareware" or whatever.) If you make your own license with such a clause, no one will consider it free or "open source." You can call it that way, but you'll just look foolish believe me.
    - freehunter 15y ago
      Ah, I see, so you can take the trademarked name of any open source project and modify and distribute the software under that name, for profit, and everyone will be okay with it. Otherwise some people will think the vendor looks foolish. I see.
      - nailer 15y ago
        You're paraphrasing the parent, and seem to be confusing Open Source (which is a class of licenses) with trademarks. You're right, HP still control the trademarks. But for a license to meet the Open Source Definition, there can be no 'non-commercial' restrictions. So selling 'Foo' (derived from WebOS) is fine.But using the WebOS trademark isn't. Just like Oracle distribute and sell support for 'Oracle Enterprise Linux' - 'Red Hat Enterprise Linux' is a trademark that belongs to Red Hat.
      - pessimizer 15y ago
        See CentOS; reduce sarcasm.
        freehunter 15y ago
        But is CentOS called "Red Hat"? No, it's called CentOS. With the comment I made, I was saying you wouldn't be able to release WebOS without HP's permission. Just like you can't release Red Hat without Red Hat's permission, so you fork it and use your own trademark.
        hugoroy 15y ago
        That's a totally different matter which has nothing to do with what you were talking about earlier. Trademark and Free Software are two completely different things… (unlike copyright and patent law, where the code itself is directly licensed under copyright law and has to deal with patent law; however there is almost never a trademark license…)
    - rwolf 15y ago
      None of the groups mentioned control the definition of "open source." I cannot control what looks foolish to you, but the phrase "open source" is tossed around a lot more casually on this site than you seem to believe.
  - sciurus 15y ago
    The open source definition and free software definition both prohibit a "not for profit" clause. What is something that you consider to be an "open source project" that has such a clause? http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
    - rwolf 15y ago
      That's a good question. I thought Zed Shaw had licensed lamson under those terms, but I see nothing about that on his github right now. While I can't find a use in the wild, an example of a license I would consider to be: * open source * prohibit for profit use is: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ You are welcome to say that creative commons is not open source (many people whose opinions I value highly feel that way), but it is commonly described in those terms (or at least it was when it first came out while I was in college). Also, here is a plug for the world's greatest license (I'm tragically not affiliated with the author): http://davispj.com/2010/02/19/agpl-not-awesome-gpl.html http://davispj.com/2010/02/19/agpl-not-awesome-gpl.html
      - xyzzyz 15y ago
        Open Source is not only about access to the source code, just like Free Software is not only about software price. By using these terms inappropriately, you only create misunderstanding and confusion, so please don't. CC licenses are not supposed to be used as software licenses anyway.
        rwolf 15y ago
        I'm not trying to push a viewpoint--I'm trying to describe the current use of a phrase. How I feel about licenses does not change the way the phrase "open source" is used here and elsewhere.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]