3 ms·

https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ I’m saying that there is a large amount of software out there that calls itself open source but that do

https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ I’m saying that there is a large amount of software out there that calls itself open source but that doesn’t meet these terms.

jraph 3y ago
I have never run into such software and it would be wrong to do this. Open source is a well understood and non-controversial designation. If you are a developer you have run into the OSD for sure and therefore, even if you don't agree with this use of the expression, if your goal is to be clear and understood, you'd be a fool to call your software open source if it does not use an OSI approved license because it would be confusing and you'd be aware of this fact. The usual qualifier for software with available source code is source-available. There's no doubt about it. We really don't need even more confusion around the terms of free software and open source than we already have.
ilyt 3y ago
...like ? Where is that "large amount"? The two I remember (Mongo and Elastic) were shat on for their license change and fake open source.
- jraph 3y ago
  Yes, the name of their license, Server-Side Public License, is a bit confusing because of the Public License part that sounds like the name of an open source license, but that's all. IIRC their communication at the time was somewhat confusing too, but the problem is solved now. Assuming no evil intents, MongoDB might have been confused themselves, genuinely thinking the SSPL was actually open source, since they tried to submit it for approval to the OSI. At the time it was unclear the license was not open source, even if some people immediately noticed issues with it.
pessimizer 3y ago
Open Source is quite a strange term, and the only reason one would use it to refer to something other than an OSI-approved license is to intentionally cause confusion for users.

https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ I’m saying that there is a large amount of software out there that calls itself open source but that doesn’t meet these terms.

jraph 3y ago

I have never run into such software and it would be wrong to do this. Open source is a well understood and non-controversial designation. If you are a developer you have run into the OSD for sure and therefore, even if you don't agree with this use of the expression, if your goal is to be clear and understood, you'd be a fool to call your software open source if it does not use an OSI approved license because it would be confusing and you'd be aware of this fact. The usual qualifier for software with available source code is source-available. There's no doubt about it. We really don't need even more confusion around the terms of free software and open source than we already have.

ilyt 3y ago

...like ? Where is that "large amount"? The two I remember (Mongo and Elastic) were shat on for their license change and fake open source.

jraph 3y ago
Yes, the name of their license, Server-Side Public License, is a bit confusing because of the Public License part that sounds like the name of an open source license, but that's all. IIRC their communication at the time was somewhat confusing too, but the problem is solved now. Assuming no evil intents, MongoDB might have been confused themselves, genuinely thinking the SSPL was actually open source, since they tried to submit it for approval to the OSI. At the time it was unclear the license was not open source, even if some people immediately noticed issues with it.

pessimizer 3y ago

Open Source is quite a strange term, and the only reason one would use it to refer to something other than an OSI-approved license is to intentionally cause confusion for users.