4 ms·

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

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.
- tpxl 4y ago
  How is it less restrictive when AGPL allows you to run a SaSS, but this one doesn't?
  - tm-guimaraes 4y ago
    It's a different restriction. AGPL lets you do anything as long as it is just as Free (as in freedom), while these kind of license only let you do things that don't compete with whatever is the current copyright owner business is doing. And business tend to change over time, and it might be simple to be clear to a court if you are competing or not. "Do whatever you want as long as you keep it Free Software" vs "do whatever you want as long as we believe you are not taking customers for us" As usual, RMS was right, and I recommend reading the Free Software vs Open Source essay, unfortunately both names make it easy to misinterpret their respective fundamental idea (Free can and is usually interpreted as "gratis", and open as available/published/shared)
    - ahachete 4y ago
      I agree with your sentiment, but I'd like to clarify the following, IMO: > It's a different restriction. AGPL doesn't impose restrictions. It provides guarantees (that modified versions will remain AGPL and therefore open source for everybody). > AGPL lets you do anything as long as it is just as Free (as in freedom) By the very definition of open source software, you can do pretty much what you want, for your own usage. If you want to distribute (e.g. provide a service) with a modified version, then you need to guarantee that modified version retains the right that the original version granted.

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.

tpxl 4y ago
How is it less restrictive when AGPL allows you to run a SaSS, but this one doesn't?
- tm-guimaraes 4y ago
  It's a different restriction. AGPL lets you do anything as long as it is just as Free (as in freedom), while these kind of license only let you do things that don't compete with whatever is the current copyright owner business is doing. And business tend to change over time, and it might be simple to be clear to a court if you are competing or not. "Do whatever you want as long as you keep it Free Software" vs "do whatever you want as long as we believe you are not taking customers for us" As usual, RMS was right, and I recommend reading the Free Software vs Open Source essay, unfortunately both names make it easy to misinterpret their respective fundamental idea (Free can and is usually interpreted as "gratis", and open as available/published/shared)
  - ahachete 4y ago
    I agree with your sentiment, but I'd like to clarify the following, IMO: > It's a different restriction. AGPL doesn't impose restrictions. It provides guarantees (that modified versions will remain AGPL and therefore open source for everybody). > AGPL lets you do anything as long as it is just as Free (as in freedom) By the very definition of open source software, you can do pretty much what you want, for your own usage. If you want to distribute (e.g. provide a service) with a modified version, then you need to guarantee that modified version retains the right that the original version granted.