6 ms·

Sure, it is fairly permissive as licenses go but those added restrictions fundamentally make this not open source, the use of this project is no longer fully op

Sure, it is fairly permissive as licenses go but those added restrictions fundamentally make this not open source, the use of this project is no longer fully open for use due to the restrictions you've place upon it. It might seem overly pedantic, but it can be quite important since many companies try to blur the lines of what open source is for their own benefit. If interested, I go into a little more detail on this here: https://danb.me/blog/posts/why-open-source-term-is-important/ https://danb.me/blog/posts/why-open-source-term-is-important...

ianbutler 4y ago
I think this is an overly dogmatic way of looking at Open Source. I think this way of looking at Open Source, and more largely OSI's stances on the term are out of touch with the realities of successful open projects and the challenges their developers face from the current software market and further out of touch with how the term Open Source is colloquially used by a large amount of people. You should be able to share source, allow individuals to use and modify your work and build a community around that work without worrying that same work will be co-opted by an entity seeking to undermine the effort you and your community have done for years, by slapping a different name on it and hosting it, competing directly against you with your own work as a business. I'm fine if "Open Source" can't be used to describe these projects which are working with imperfect situations and looking to protect themselves while still providing their software with generally good intentions, but by the same token I then hope the software community will come up with a new good name for these type of projects, it becomes the common name, and the dogmatic definition of "Open Source" fades into the relative obscurity I think it deserves from being so divorced from reality.
- microtonal 4y ago
  I think this is an overly dogmatic way of looking at Open Source. Open Source is a functional definition that served us for 25 years. E.g. if software is Open Source, it can be included in a Linux distribution. Most distributions do not accept software that is incompatible with the Open Source definition. Diluting the term open source makes it more difficult to talk about a certain class of software licenses. And why dilute the term if we have the perfect alternative term source available?
  - ianbutler 4y ago
    Is it now? I was under the assumption it was an ideological definition, at least that's how people present every time one of these projects are even a smidge off from the OSI definition. I don't think most major Open Source projects in the last 10 years have even once considered, 'E.g. if software is Open Source, it can be included in a Linux distribution.' That is exactly what I mean by "out of touch". If I had to guess the primary motivator for being Open Source, are the communal and moral aspects of it.
    - jdub 4y ago
      Software Freedom is an ideology. Open Source is a definition.
      - ianbutler 4y ago
        Well the trademark is going the way of bandaid, and definitions change regularly. Edit: I see you edited that part out.
        jdub 4y ago
        The OSI definition hasn't changed. It barely changed what it borrowed from the Debian Free Software Guidelines before that. ("Open Source" itself isn't a trademark, but the OSI bits are, so I removed it to avoid confusion.) (There's no indication that the legal construction of a trademark is "going the way of the bandaid", or that bandaids are "going the way of the bandaid" for that matter.)
  - brendank310 4y ago
    Because it is open source. It's not Free Open Source Software (FOSS) as deemed by some foundation or another. There is a lot of great open source software not included in Linux because of licensing issues (e.g. BSD clashing with GPL). Source available has generally meant you can have the source if you meet some criteria (have a license), but the license prevents you from redistributing it. I haven't dug into this license but it seems less restrictive than the AGPL.
- mikebenfield 4y ago
  The "dogmatic definition" of open source is what has been used for decades. Applying it to something that doesn't meet that definition invites confusion. If a project wants to do something different, and develop an "open project" under some terms that aren't open source, they are free to do so, but they shouldn't call it something it's not.
  - _benedict 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - dang 4y ago
      This seems to be the point at which this thread devolved into a flamewar. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but it's a direct line from provocations like "you aren’t the language police", "this weird attitude", and "just nonsense" to the "blow it your ass" that we got below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529541 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529327). If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. That means being more careful to "edit out swipes", as the guidelines put it.
    - FeepingCreature 4y ago
      > "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." > "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "who is to be master - that's all." - Through the Looking-Glass, slightly adjusted. The whole goal of calling it "open source" is to take advantage of the positive connotations associated with the term. But the positive connotations come from software published under the dogma, and are inseparable from it. (You can see the same twists and turns in Elastic's FAQ, where they desperately try to twist language so that "open" and "source" are as close together as possible without outright making contact. Guess nobody told them they can just use the word under their own definition, or as the rest of the world calls it, "lie".)
- blowski 4y ago
  Exactly. Such a definition of open source is hardly universal. I think of it as a sliding scale - to what extent is this open source? Does it allow me to: * view, download and modify the source code? * distribute the code as part of another project? * distribute modified versions of the code? * do whatever I like with it? Arguing that unless you meet the OSI definition, you can’t call yourself open source is a little like saying you can’t call a peanut a nut: it all depends on the context of the conversation. At the OSI annual conference, sure this isn’t open source. On a Show HN I’m fine with it being open source.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  Companies want the goodwill and community support that being open source provides without the obligations (copyleft with GPL-like licences and the do whatever you want with the code of MIT-like licenses). Defending attempts to redefine open source like this is just carrying water for megacorps.
- vineyardmike 4y ago
  > You should be able to share source, allow individuals to use and modify your work and build a community around that work without worrying that same work will be co-opted by an entity seeking to undermine the effort you and your community have done for years, by slapping a different name on it and hosting it, competing directly against you with your own work as a business. The project in question is a CLI tool to a cloud platform that wraps an open source project (Kafka), complete with a page advertising why to use the wrapped software instead of the open-source version. Its great that this person can work on a project, and share the source, but if anything, they're literally the ones doing the undermining of a community by re-branding existing OS Software. There's no community to form, no reason to expect anyone to contribute. The only reason anyone would want to modify this codebase is to interact with the centralized service through a different way. "Source available" is a perfectly valid state, and describes a codebase like this which you can view, and even edit locally. "Open Source" is a term used for years to describe certain freedoms regarding software that has led to the abilities of many software users to modify and use software for whatever purpose they like, like the company in question using Kafka. Using an open-source codebase to make money is not undermining the project, its explicitly allowed in the license. We're all so much better off because open source projects, like Kafka, don't have these controlling and self-serving license.
- wheels 4y ago
  > without worrying that same work will be co-opted by an entity seeking to undermine the effort you and your community have done for years That literally is the point of open source: that it's not reliant on a single vendor. That's what open source was created for, and that's a big part of why it's thrived. It's fine to create other structures, but as many have pointed out here, those other structures aren't open source. There are a lot of licenses that allow access to source code (very common in enterprise licenses) but have restrictions on what you can do with that source code.
- tm-guimaraes 4y ago
  Use AGPL then. If any other business wants to "undermine" yours, they would then have to let you "undermine" theirs as well.
- hutzlibu 4y ago
  "entity seeking to undermine the effort you and your community have done for years, by slapping a different name on it and hosting it, competing directly against you with your own work as a business." The ability to fork was always a core value of Open Source. Especially if there was a community around a project that invested lots of energy into it - and then drama comes. Without forking it means it will always be dependant on the creator. Not the spirit I would like ot get into myself and I also don't like to see those 2 concepts mixed up.
CrimsonRain 4y ago
Or maybe some people are trying to blur the line between FOSS and OSS. If source is publicly available, it is open source. Plain and simple; regardless of your legal ability to copy or modify.
- circuit10 4y ago
  If I look up the definition of "open source", it says: Definitions from Oxford Languages open-source denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified. Emphasis on "may be redistributed and modified"

ianbutler 4y ago

I think this is an overly dogmatic way of looking at Open Source. I think this way of looking at Open Source, and more largely OSI's stances on the term are out of touch with the realities of successful open projects and the challenges their developers face from the current software market and further out of touch with how the term Open Source is colloquially used by a large amount of people. You should be able to share source, allow individuals to use and modify your work and build a community around that work without worrying that same work will be co-opted by an entity seeking to undermine the effort you and your community have done for years, by slapping a different name on it and hosting it, competing directly against you with your own work as a business. I'm fine if "Open Source" can't be used to describe these projects which are working with imperfect situations and looking to protect themselves while still providing their software with generally good intentions, but by the same token I then hope the software community will come up with a new good name for these type of projects, it becomes the common name, and the dogmatic definition of "Open Source" fades into the relative obscurity I think it deserves from being so divorced from reality.

microtonal 4y ago
I think this is an overly dogmatic way of looking at Open Source. Open Source is a functional definition that served us for 25 years. E.g. if software is Open Source, it can be included in a Linux distribution. Most distributions do not accept software that is incompatible with the Open Source definition. Diluting the term open source makes it more difficult to talk about a certain class of software licenses. And why dilute the term if we have the perfect alternative term source available?
- ianbutler 4y ago
  Is it now? I was under the assumption it was an ideological definition, at least that's how people present every time one of these projects are even a smidge off from the OSI definition. I don't think most major Open Source projects in the last 10 years have even once considered, 'E.g. if software is Open Source, it can be included in a Linux distribution.' That is exactly what I mean by "out of touch". If I had to guess the primary motivator for being Open Source, are the communal and moral aspects of it.
  - jdub 4y ago
    Software Freedom is an ideology. Open Source is a definition.
    - ianbutler 4y ago
      Well the trademark is going the way of bandaid, and definitions change regularly. Edit: I see you edited that part out.
      - jdub 4y ago
        The OSI definition hasn't changed. It barely changed what it borrowed from the Debian Free Software Guidelines before that. ("Open Source" itself isn't a trademark, but the OSI bits are, so I removed it to avoid confusion.) (There's no indication that the legal construction of a trademark is "going the way of the bandaid", or that bandaids are "going the way of the bandaid" for that matter.)
- brendank310 4y ago
  Because it is open source. It's not Free Open Source Software (FOSS) as deemed by some foundation or another. There is a lot of great open source software not included in Linux because of licensing issues (e.g. BSD clashing with GPL). Source available has generally meant you can have the source if you meet some criteria (have a license), but the license prevents you from redistributing it. I haven't dug into this license but it seems less restrictive than the AGPL.
mikebenfield 4y ago
The "dogmatic definition" of open source is what has been used for decades. Applying it to something that doesn't meet that definition invites confusion. If a project wants to do something different, and develop an "open project" under some terms that aren't open source, they are free to do so, but they shouldn't call it something it's not.
- _benedict 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - dang 4y ago
    This seems to be the point at which this thread devolved into a flamewar. I'm sure that wasn't your intent, but it's a direct line from provocations like "you aren’t the language police", "this weird attitude", and "just nonsense" to the "blow it your ass" that we got below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529541 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529541 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529327 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34529327). If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. That means being more careful to "edit out swipes", as the guidelines put it.
  - FeepingCreature 4y ago
    > "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." > "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "who is to be master - that's all." - Through the Looking-Glass, slightly adjusted. The whole goal of calling it "open source" is to take advantage of the positive connotations associated with the term. But the positive connotations come from software published under the dogma, and are inseparable from it. (You can see the same twists and turns in Elastic's FAQ, where they desperately try to twist language so that "open" and "source" are as close together as possible without outright making contact. Guess nobody told them they can just use the word under their own definition, or as the rest of the world calls it, "lie".)
blowski 4y ago
Exactly. Such a definition of open source is hardly universal. I think of it as a sliding scale - to what extent is this open source? Does it allow me to: * view, download and modify the source code? * distribute the code as part of another project? * distribute modified versions of the code? * do whatever I like with it? Arguing that unless you meet the OSI definition, you can’t call yourself open source is a little like saying you can’t call a peanut a nut: it all depends on the context of the conversation. At the OSI annual conference, sure this isn’t open source. On a Show HN I’m fine with it being open source.
HideousKojima 4y ago
Companies want the goodwill and community support that being open source provides without the obligations (copyleft with GPL-like licences and the do whatever you want with the code of MIT-like licenses). Defending attempts to redefine open source like this is just carrying water for megacorps.
vineyardmike 4y ago
> You should be able to share source, allow individuals to use and modify your work and build a community around that work without worrying that same work will be co-opted by an entity seeking to undermine the effort you and your community have done for years, by slapping a different name on it and hosting it, competing directly against you with your own work as a business. The project in question is a CLI tool to a cloud platform that wraps an open source project (Kafka), complete with a page advertising why to use the wrapped software instead of the open-source version. Its great that this person can work on a project, and share the source, but if anything, they're literally the ones doing the undermining of a community by re-branding existing OS Software. There's no community to form, no reason to expect anyone to contribute. The only reason anyone would want to modify this codebase is to interact with the centralized service through a different way. "Source available" is a perfectly valid state, and describes a codebase like this which you can view, and even edit locally. "Open Source" is a term used for years to describe certain freedoms regarding software that has led to the abilities of many software users to modify and use software for whatever purpose they like, like the company in question using Kafka. Using an open-source codebase to make money is not undermining the project, its explicitly allowed in the license. We're all so much better off because open source projects, like Kafka, don't have these controlling and self-serving license.
wheels 4y ago
> without worrying that same work will be co-opted by an entity seeking to undermine the effort you and your community have done for years That literally is the point of open source: that it's not reliant on a single vendor. That's what open source was created for, and that's a big part of why it's thrived. It's fine to create other structures, but as many have pointed out here, those other structures aren't open source. There are a lot of licenses that allow access to source code (very common in enterprise licenses) but have restrictions on what you can do with that source code.
tm-guimaraes 4y ago
Use AGPL then. If any other business wants to "undermine" yours, they would then have to let you "undermine" theirs as well.
hutzlibu 4y ago
"entity seeking to undermine the effort you and your community have done for years, by slapping a different name on it and hosting it, competing directly against you with your own work as a business." The ability to fork was always a core value of Open Source. Especially if there was a community around a project that invested lots of energy into it - and then drama comes. Without forking it means it will always be dependant on the creator. Not the spirit I would like ot get into myself and I also don't like to see those 2 concepts mixed up.

CrimsonRain 4y ago

Or maybe some people are trying to blur the line between FOSS and OSS. If source is publicly available, it is open source. Plain and simple; regardless of your legal ability to copy or modify.

circuit10 4y ago
If I look up the definition of "open source", it says: Definitions from Oxford Languages open-source denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified. Emphasis on "may be redistributed and modified"