9 ms·

Note, their idea[0] of "open source" doesn't match the popular Open Source Definition [1] [0] https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE.md h

Note, their idea[0] of "open source" doesn't match the popular Open Source Definition [1] [0] https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE... [1] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/

kykeonaut 3y ago
Hence why the "free" in "Free and Open Source Software" really matters. :)
- sydon 3y ago
  Damn, didn't even think about that.
- npteljes 3y ago
  Not really, someone could just use that misleadingly too, just as with "open source". "Open Source" already doesn't cover these special licenses, instead, the "source available" is used. Any also acknowledges this actually - the license they are using is called the "Any Source Available License 1.0".
  - kykeonaut 3y ago
    After a bit of brushing up on my acronyms, one could indeed use FOSS or FLOSS to denote that a piece of software is either free (or libre) or just open source [0]. The term "open source" is not referring to software with a free license, but to software whose source code is available to the public irrespective of license [1]. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
    - pgeorgi 3y ago
      That article you post as [1] refers to https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ for "The official definition of open source software (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here)" The FSF article directly follow with this, which contradicts your claim: "However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand “open source software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is “source available.”) That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source." And the OSD also disagrees: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." Terms that can be summarized as "whose source code is available to the public" are called "source available", even by the FSF.
      - kykeonaut 3y ago
        You are indeed correct, should have dug a little deeper (or maybe not doubt the OSD's definition in the first place). Thank you for the clarification :)
    - npteljes 3y ago
      GNU also misses the point a bit. With open source, the source is open, but some other general rights are included too, like to restriction to the type usage. Lately, people and corporations made a lot of money on the backs of open source developers, so a new type of license emerged, and this would be the one that really is just about the "open" "source", but to make it distinct from the already widely known term, people call these "source available". Getting back to the topic, Any knows these distinctions too - or at least their lawyer did, because they call their license a "Source Available License"[0]. Source-available however doesn't carry the coolness of what "open source" brings - so on the marketing page, they refer to the project as "open source", which kind of can be argued, since the majority of it is indeed proper open source. [0] https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE...
pronkin 3y ago
Co-founder of anytype is here. The most of are repos are fully open-source. We have our philosophy regarding open source here https://blog.anytype.io/our-open-philosophy/ https://blog.anytype.io/our-open-philosophy/ Happy to discuss concerns regarding our approach.
- andrewshadura 3y ago
  You deny your users the most basic freedom there is, the freedom to use your software for any purpose without discrimination. This is wrong, and so is your attempt to misuse and redefine the term "open source software".
  - number6 3y ago
    This is the second time today that someone mistakes open source and free software. See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... I don't blame you, it's a bit schadenfreude on my part because "open source" companies try to dress as free software but aren't
    - andrewshadura 3y ago
      No. Open source is the same as free software. It is a marketing term for free software, that defines the same concept in more practical terms. If you actually read the article you linked, you would have known that.
      - lucideer 3y ago
        Open source is not the same as free software. There are broadly two camps: Camp 1 who advocate for free software & free software alone, and Camp 2 who advocate for "open source" being an all-encompassing umbrella term for a few things, including free software. Those in Camp 1 are typically not supportive of the goals of those in Camp 2. Those in Camp 2 do often try and equivocate the two terms.
itherseed 3y ago
You should be always skeptic but when someone write "Pure transparency — trust our code, not our words" in an EXTRA BIG font, you should be extra skeptic.
- sharipova 3y ago
  (co-founder of anytype) our main promises are privacy, end-to-end encryption, user controlled keys, self-hosting, p2p sync - all of which should add up to what we can user autonomy from the software provider which we believe to be important. To prove these claims the best way is open the source code. As promises of encryption and ownership stay promises unless you can be sure of it. That was one main motivation and why we think it's worth highlighting.
  - master-lincoln 3y ago
    Is there a way to make sure I am using the code you published and not a different version?
    - requilence 3y ago
      We do releases in the Github Actions CI. So you can inspect the CI logs and published artefacts(desktop/android). Then you can compare the binaries checksums. I would appreciate ideas on how we can make it more transparent
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    So I see the networking portions of the code are Free Software - that's great. How are people expected to use it if their use does not fall under "non-commercial use" as defined in the client license? Do you expect people to write their own clients for commercial use, or do you offer commercial licenses?
    - pronkin 3y ago
      For non-commercial use, you're prohibited from selling it, but using it within your organization is permitted
wallmountedtv 3y ago
When will VC companies stop conflating source available with open source? It's even worse than just being closed source as it's trying to pander to a group for money, and without any respect to the actual values of what they are saying.
- pronkin 3y ago
  Our philosophy surrounding open-source is uncomplicated and clear. All essential protocols and data formats are subject to the MIT license. However, considering our clients' needs and with the MongoDB situation as a reference, we must maintain some degree of defensibility. Our objective is to foster a collaborative atmosphere, co-creating with the community. The size of the community matters to us; when it reaches a significant scale, we want to make collective decisions regarding licensing, reflecting a democratic approach. Antype, a creation of our non-profit organization, is aimed at sustainability rather than becoming another digital ghost. Our mission isn't simply to exist, but to thrive and make meaningful contributions to the open-source landscape. By intertwining our growth with that of our community, we're setting the stage for a sustainable future.
  - lucideer 3y ago
    These are all noble goals, and I don't think many commenters here are arguing that they're not justified. Just that the specific use of the term "open source" is incorrectly applied (to your own benefit). If a subset of things you do are open source, that's great. Say that.
    - pronkin 3y ago
      Yep, you right, we'll correct it.
      - EvanAnderson 3y ago
        Thank you! Terminology matters. I really appreciate that you’re willing to make that change.
zoogeny 3y ago
A lot of the comments to this are angry and I can appreciate that. There is obviously some specific nuance to "open source" that individuals in this thread want to maintain and feel that the OSI has enshrined in stone as a definition that no one shall breach. However, I strongly support the kind of license (in principle) that this software is released under. Source code is available for anyone to inspect, modify for their own use, contribute to, run locally for their own benefit. The main restriction is so clearly obvious: you can't create a commercial competitor. You can't take their code and with minimal effort or minor changes create a competing app and sell it to others. This to me seems like a completely sane license. So common in fact that creative commons asks two basic questions when they recommend a license: "Allow adaptations of your work to be shared?" and "Allow commercial uses of your work?". In fact, they differentiate this difference with the moniker "Free cultural works" [1] (those that allow commercial use are termed "free"). I'd like to see the same nuance in software licenses. A difference between "open" and "free". That way, we can avoid this bickering in the comments where those who really want completely free software (free from all restrictions including those against commercial use) won't jump down the throats of those who want to open up their source while protecting themselves from competing commercial use. 1. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/fr...
- mbreese 3y ago
  This isn’t bickering. These definitions have existed for literal decades. There are multiple models for making source code available, and people can choose what license they want. But this isn’t open source. This is source available, free (as in beer, kinda) license. You don’t have to pay, and you can see the source code. But, in my quick reading, I don’t think you can make modifications, distribute modifications, distribute unmodified versions, and there is a restriction on how you use the software (non-commercial only). This is the same type of license Microsoft gave certain large (TLA) customers for Windows, IIRC. I believe they called it “shared source,” as in they shared a copy of the source with you, but you couldn’t use the source for more than review. No one would claim that was open source. There are differences between free, open, and available. This is only the later. No one cares about what license something is available through. Authors get to do whatever they want. People only care when you try to claim one thing, but it is really something else. In this case, the company is trying to use the term “open source” as a selling point of their software, when it isn’t. This license doesn’t even match the definitions they use on their own site! I’m happy the authors want to make it possible to audit their software. That’s a laudable goal. If they want to restrict usage of the source code to non-commercial use, that’s fine and up to them. Just don’t call it “open source”. Just because something is free doesn’t make it open. And just because something is open doesn’t make it free (as in freedom or beer). Similarly, just because something auditable and available, doesn’t make it free or open. The fact that the authors don’t know the difference (or are potentially misrepresenting the difference) will only make the community mad - especially the part of the community that would care about seeing the source code in the first place. If they instead were marketing the project as “source available” for auditing or non-commercial use, this wouldn’t have been an issue.
JSavageOne 3y ago
So what is the appropriate term then for "source code freely available, but cannot be used for commercial use?" I guess probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo and sell it.
- e12e 3y ago
  Source Available.
- Zambyte 3y ago
  > I guess probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo and sell it. Because that is the definition of "Open Source"[0]. As was already said, "source available" is the correct term here. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
  - eudoxus 3y ago
    Sorry but this is not the definition of "open source", I would argue there is only a conceptual and cultural definition of "open source". What you are linking to is The Open Source Initiative (OSI) Foundation's declaration called the "Open Source Definition". They are a single organization, that have done a tremendous job at trying to come up with a global and shared legal framework to which people can license code under. They have gone so far to come up with a pretty good definition of "open source", but not the definition. This would be equivalent to saying that "Freedom" is defined by the US Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms. It is not, those are both examples of a legal definition of freedom, but neither are the sole authority for the global and cultural concept of "Freedom"
    - Zambyte 3y ago
      > This would be equivalent to saying that "Freedom" is defined by the US Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms. The idea of freedom existed before both documents. The idea of Open Source was proposed in 1998 [0], and the OSI was created to define it in the same year [1]. This is not at all equivalent. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#The_launch_of_Open_Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative
api 3y ago
The conventional open source model makes everything free labor for billion dollar companies and hustlers who just take it and slap it up behind a paywall. It's used to underpin SaaS models that are significantly less open or free than closed-source local commercial software. It'd be nice if the OSI or the open source community addressed this issue head-on, but so far they refuse and insist nothing is wrong. This refusal leads to a proliferation of almost-open-source licenses that just muddy the waters. If they continue to refuse I think we'll see more and more of this until the definition of open source becomes hopelessly muddy and the whole community starts to wither.

kykeonaut 3y ago

Hence why the "free" in "Free and Open Source Software" really matters. :)

sydon 3y ago
Damn, didn't even think about that.
npteljes 3y ago
Not really, someone could just use that misleadingly too, just as with "open source". "Open Source" already doesn't cover these special licenses, instead, the "source available" is used. Any also acknowledges this actually - the license they are using is called the "Any Source Available License 1.0".
- kykeonaut 3y ago
  After a bit of brushing up on my acronyms, one could indeed use FOSS or FLOSS to denote that a piece of software is either free (or libre) or just open source [0]. The term "open source" is not referring to software with a free license, but to software whose source code is available to the public irrespective of license [1]. [0] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    That article you post as [1] refers to https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ for "The official definition of open source software (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here)" The FSF article directly follow with this, which contradicts your claim: "However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software” is “You can look at the source code.” Indeed, most people seem to misunderstand “open source software” that way. (The clear term for that meaning is “source available.”) That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source." And the OSD also disagrees: "The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software." Terms that can be summarized as "whose source code is available to the public" are called "source available", even by the FSF.
    - kykeonaut 3y ago
      You are indeed correct, should have dug a little deeper (or maybe not doubt the OSD's definition in the first place). Thank you for the clarification :)
  - npteljes 3y ago
    GNU also misses the point a bit. With open source, the source is open, but some other general rights are included too, like to restriction to the type usage. Lately, people and corporations made a lot of money on the backs of open source developers, so a new type of license emerged, and this would be the one that really is just about the "open" "source", but to make it distinct from the already widely known term, people call these "source available". Getting back to the topic, Any knows these distinctions too - or at least their lawyer did, because they call their license a "Source Available License"[0]. Source-available however doesn't carry the coolness of what "open source" brings - so on the marketing page, they refer to the project as "open source", which kind of can be argued, since the majority of it is indeed proper open source. [0] https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE.md https://github.com/anyproto/anytype-kotlin/blob/main/LICENSE...

pronkin 3y ago

Co-founder of anytype is here. The most of are repos are fully open-source. We have our philosophy regarding open source here https://blog.anytype.io/our-open-philosophy/ https://blog.anytype.io/our-open-philosophy/ Happy to discuss concerns regarding our approach.

andrewshadura 3y ago
You deny your users the most basic freedom there is, the freedom to use your software for any purpose without discrimination. This is wrong, and so is your attempt to misuse and redefine the term "open source software".
- number6 3y ago
  This is the second time today that someone mistakes open source and free software. See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html.en https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.... I don't blame you, it's a bit schadenfreude on my part because "open source" companies try to dress as free software but aren't
  - andrewshadura 3y ago
    No. Open source is the same as free software. It is a marketing term for free software, that defines the same concept in more practical terms. If you actually read the article you linked, you would have known that.
    - lucideer 3y ago
      Open source is not the same as free software. There are broadly two camps: Camp 1 who advocate for free software & free software alone, and Camp 2 who advocate for "open source" being an all-encompassing umbrella term for a few things, including free software. Those in Camp 1 are typically not supportive of the goals of those in Camp 2. Those in Camp 2 do often try and equivocate the two terms.

itherseed 3y ago

You should be always skeptic but when someone write "Pure transparency — trust our code, not our words" in an EXTRA BIG font, you should be extra skeptic.

sharipova 3y ago
(co-founder of anytype) our main promises are privacy, end-to-end encryption, user controlled keys, self-hosting, p2p sync - all of which should add up to what we can user autonomy from the software provider which we believe to be important. To prove these claims the best way is open the source code. As promises of encryption and ownership stay promises unless you can be sure of it. That was one main motivation and why we think it's worth highlighting.
- master-lincoln 3y ago
  Is there a way to make sure I am using the code you published and not a different version?
  - requilence 3y ago
    We do releases in the Github Actions CI. So you can inspect the CI logs and published artefacts(desktop/android). Then you can compare the binaries checksums. I would appreciate ideas on how we can make it more transparent
- Zambyte 3y ago
  So I see the networking portions of the code are Free Software - that's great. How are people expected to use it if their use does not fall under "non-commercial use" as defined in the client license? Do you expect people to write their own clients for commercial use, or do you offer commercial licenses?
  - pronkin 3y ago
    For non-commercial use, you're prohibited from selling it, but using it within your organization is permitted

wallmountedtv 3y ago

When will VC companies stop conflating source available with open source? It's even worse than just being closed source as it's trying to pander to a group for money, and without any respect to the actual values of what they are saying.

pronkin 3y ago
Our philosophy surrounding open-source is uncomplicated and clear. All essential protocols and data formats are subject to the MIT license. However, considering our clients' needs and with the MongoDB situation as a reference, we must maintain some degree of defensibility. Our objective is to foster a collaborative atmosphere, co-creating with the community. The size of the community matters to us; when it reaches a significant scale, we want to make collective decisions regarding licensing, reflecting a democratic approach. Antype, a creation of our non-profit organization, is aimed at sustainability rather than becoming another digital ghost. Our mission isn't simply to exist, but to thrive and make meaningful contributions to the open-source landscape. By intertwining our growth with that of our community, we're setting the stage for a sustainable future.
- lucideer 3y ago
  These are all noble goals, and I don't think many commenters here are arguing that they're not justified. Just that the specific use of the term "open source" is incorrectly applied (to your own benefit). If a subset of things you do are open source, that's great. Say that.
  - pronkin 3y ago
    Yep, you right, we'll correct it.
    - EvanAnderson 3y ago
      Thank you! Terminology matters. I really appreciate that you’re willing to make that change.

zoogeny 3y ago

A lot of the comments to this are angry and I can appreciate that. There is obviously some specific nuance to "open source" that individuals in this thread want to maintain and feel that the OSI has enshrined in stone as a definition that no one shall breach. However, I strongly support the kind of license (in principle) that this software is released under. Source code is available for anyone to inspect, modify for their own use, contribute to, run locally for their own benefit. The main restriction is so clearly obvious: you can't create a commercial competitor. You can't take their code and with minimal effort or minor changes create a competing app and sell it to others. This to me seems like a completely sane license. So common in fact that creative commons asks two basic questions when they recommend a license: "Allow adaptations of your work to be shared?" and "Allow commercial uses of your work?". In fact, they differentiate this difference with the moniker "Free cultural works" [1] (those that allow commercial use are termed "free"). I'd like to see the same nuance in software licenses. A difference between "open" and "free". That way, we can avoid this bickering in the comments where those who really want completely free software (free from all restrictions including those against commercial use) won't jump down the throats of those who want to open up their source while protecting themselves from competing commercial use. 1. https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/freeworks https://creativecommons.org/share-your-work/public-domain/fr...

mbreese 3y ago
This isn’t bickering. These definitions have existed for literal decades. There are multiple models for making source code available, and people can choose what license they want. But this isn’t open source. This is source available, free (as in beer, kinda) license. You don’t have to pay, and you can see the source code. But, in my quick reading, I don’t think you can make modifications, distribute modifications, distribute unmodified versions, and there is a restriction on how you use the software (non-commercial only). This is the same type of license Microsoft gave certain large (TLA) customers for Windows, IIRC. I believe they called it “shared source,” as in they shared a copy of the source with you, but you couldn’t use the source for more than review. No one would claim that was open source. There are differences between free, open, and available. This is only the later. No one cares about what license something is available through. Authors get to do whatever they want. People only care when you try to claim one thing, but it is really something else. In this case, the company is trying to use the term “open source” as a selling point of their software, when it isn’t. This license doesn’t even match the definitions they use on their own site! I’m happy the authors want to make it possible to audit their software. That’s a laudable goal. If they want to restrict usage of the source code to non-commercial use, that’s fine and up to them. Just don’t call it “open source”. Just because something is free doesn’t make it open. And just because something is open doesn’t make it free (as in freedom or beer). Similarly, just because something auditable and available, doesn’t make it free or open. The fact that the authors don’t know the difference (or are potentially misrepresenting the difference) will only make the community mad - especially the part of the community that would care about seeing the source code in the first place. If they instead were marketing the project as “source available” for auditing or non-commercial use, this wouldn’t have been an issue.

JSavageOne 3y ago

So what is the appropriate term then for "source code freely available, but cannot be used for commercial use?" I guess probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo and sell it.

e12e 3y ago
Source Available.
Zambyte 3y ago
> I guess probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't see why "open source" must imply that anyone should be allowed to fork the repo and sell it. Because that is the definition of "Open Source"[0]. As was already said, "source available" is the correct term here. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition
- eudoxus 3y ago
  Sorry but this is not the definition of "open source", I would argue there is only a conceptual and cultural definition of "open source". What you are linking to is The Open Source Initiative (OSI) Foundation's declaration called the "Open Source Definition". They are a single organization, that have done a tremendous job at trying to come up with a global and shared legal framework to which people can license code under. They have gone so far to come up with a pretty good definition of "open source", but not the definition. This would be equivalent to saying that "Freedom" is defined by the US Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms. It is not, those are both examples of a legal definition of freedom, but neither are the sole authority for the global and cultural concept of "Freedom"
  - Zambyte 3y ago
    > This would be equivalent to saying that "Freedom" is defined by the US Constitution or the Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms. The idea of freedom existed before both documents. The idea of Open Source was proposed in 1998 [0], and the OSI was created to define it in the same year [1]. This is not at all equivalent. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-source_software#The_launch_of_Open_Source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_free_and_open-sourc... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Source_Initiative

api 3y ago

The conventional open source model makes everything free labor for billion dollar companies and hustlers who just take it and slap it up behind a paywall. It's used to underpin SaaS models that are significantly less open or free than closed-source local commercial software. It'd be nice if the OSI or the open source community addressed this issue head-on, but so far they refuse and insist nothing is wrong. This refusal leads to a proliferation of almost-open-source licenses that just muddy the waters. If they continue to refuse I think we'll see more and more of this until the definition of open source becomes hopelessly muddy and the whole community starts to wither.