4 ms·
That condition is not in the spirit or commonly accepted definition of open source.
by jcstryker 3y ago
That condition is not in the spirit or commonly accepted definition of open source.
- pnpnp 3y ago“Open source” tends to be a spectrum. For example, many consider GPL to be a great OSS license, but it’s restrictive enough that some BSD projects try to avoid it.
- peterfarkas 3y agoIt tends to be a spectrum, but the various, sometimes very different licenses adopted by the OSI still have something in common - the open source values laid out in the Open Source Definition. [1] SSPL did not comply with this requirement, as it discriminate against specific users or use cases. I think it is in the interest of everyone to draw the line somewhere. [1]: https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/
- pnpnp 3y agoBSD would not be OSS by this definition, as it has no clause against discrimination of people. OSS is IMO a very subjective term. There is a massive gray area surrounding open-sourcing derivative works, etc. and other stipulations.
- cyanydeez 3y agoOpen source licenses might be a spectrum but it's likely that the legal reality isn't. Like the famous double split experiment there's probably no spectrum and only a couple of buckets of legal validity.
- pnpnp 3y agoAs far as the buckets go, I still believe there is a pretty large spectrum. BSD vs GPL vs LGPL are pretty dramatically different, and there are many in-between that might satisfy the definition of “open-source” at face value.
- paulddraper 3y agoWhy not?