6 ms·

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-p

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.
      - andrewshadura 3y ago
        No, it really is. Open source is equivalent to free software in everything but definition, and does not include anything that is not free software. There are minor disagreements between different people from the two camps which licenses to accept (e.g. Debian where this definition originated from, does not consider GFDL with invariant sections free, while FSF apparently does). It really is the whole point of it, define more clearly what criteria must be fulfilled for software to be considered free software.
        lucideer 3y ago
        > Open source is equivalent to free software in everything but definition Is this a typo?
        andrewshadura 3y ago
        No, it isn’t. Open source and free software define the same thing in different ways. FSD defines the user’s freedoms, OSD defines what the license cannot forbid. The end result is the same though.
    - dancemethis 3y ago
      It's not, because Free Software handles practical and ethical advantages as an indivisible unit, while open source focus only on promoting practical advantages.
      - andrewshadura 3y ago
        You are missing the point. The definition of free software focuses on the freedoms of the user, but these freedoms are not easy to verify against a specific software license. The practical aspect of the open source definition (which really is the Debian free software guidelines with the word Debian removed) is that it gives you a toolkit, ten criteria that a licence must fulfil to be considered free software. Importantly, when this definition was created, the alternative, the free software definition, was incomplete and lacked the freedom zero [0]. Even more importantly, that text apparently wasn’t widely known back then, and even Richard Stallman himself liked the DFSG as a definition of free software [1]. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt [1]: https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=26875815 https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=268758...
  - andrewshadura 3y ago
    More specifically, their license doesn't meet these criteria of open source software (which are the same as the Debian free software guidelines): 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
  - pgeorgi 3y ago
    You replied to "You deny your users the most basic freedom there is, the freedom to use your software for any purpose without discrimination." and caim that open source isn't about that. Let's see https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/ https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/, _the_ definition for open source, specifically the sections titled "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" and "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor": "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons." "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." So what GP claimed seems to be exactly Open Source's point, no?
    - pronkin 3y ago
      The way we crafted it is not clear. Our idea is straightforward: if you want to use the software, you can do so for free, whether for personal use or within an organization. However, if you aim to sell it for profit, you need to contribute to its creation in some way; this is why permission is required. At least, that's the case at this early stage.
      - Kerrick 3y ago
        That means it's zero-cost and source available, not open source. As it's your software that's your choice, but please don't abuse the term "open source" to describe it. It's no more "open source" than, say, DaVinci Resolve is.
        ewan-mclean 3y ago
        [dead]
        blacklightpy 3y ago
        > It's no more "open source" than, say, DaVinci Resolve is. DaVinci Resolve is not source available. Anytype does not restrict you from forking the code as long as it is non-commercial. And it also lets you fork the code for commercial use, if you take their permission. So it is simply a non-commercial open source license, with permission required for commercial use. Sure, not OSI Approved License™, but certainly "open source". If this was not "open source", neither would be GNU GPL, because it isn't permissive enough. This is no different from Qt's dual license except that GPL allows commercial use too. Or, like Creative Commons NC licenses, but for software.
  - maxloh 3y ago
    Which is the first time? Any hacker news link?
- lucideer 3y ago
  > This is wrong This is a highly subjective take - it might be better to stick to objective dictionary definitions. This project clearly isn't open source, & shouldn't be advertised as such, but on the other hand the intent here is a common/popular one these days, & its not the first of its kind: I'm surprised no-one has yet coined a term for this relatively new breed of "faux-pen source" or whatever it is. Fwiw I do think it has it's place - it's certainly more than preferable to all rights reserved.
- pronkin 3y ago
  Our idea is straightforward: if you want to use the software, you can do so for free, whether for personal use or within an organization. However, if you aim to sell it for profit, you need to contribute to its creation in some way; this is why permission is required. At least, that's the case at this early stage.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
jasonlotito 3y ago
I was going to come here and post about how this is exactly what I've been looking for, but then I read this. So, my kneejerk reaction to this deceptive use of open source is to just say "no" and move on. However, I read through your philosphy, and I have a question. > considering the substantial R&D resources required for the application layer, we believe that businesses and networks utilizing our software for commercial purposes should contribute towards its ongoing development, allowing maintainers to support and enhance the platform. That seems to be the crux of the concern here. I can respect that. So, why do existing open source licenses not suit you? For example, you could release the software under the AGPL, and still dual-license it as you wish. Rather than assume bad faith, I'm going to give you the chance to correct yourself. At the very least, calling yourself open source at the moment is deceptive, whether you realize it or not.
- blacklightpy 3y ago
  I don't see the problem with using Anytype License instead of AGPL. AGPL allows commercial use as long as the source code is provided, while Anytype disallows commercial use. Other than that it is the same, and is "open source" regardless. As in, OSI doesn't trademark "open source".
- pronkin 3y ago
  The most of are repost are open-sourced with MIT licence. It's clear now, that the way we put words together in the license for clients is not clear. Our idea is straightforward: if you want to use the software, you can do so for free, whether for personal use or within an organization. However, if you aim to sell it for profit(like change the logo and put price tag on it), you need to contribute to its creation in some way; this is why permission is required. At least, that's the case at this early stage.
rebeccaskinner 3y ago
Using the term Open Source for a product when most of the code is under a license that isn’t Open Source feels dishonest to me. The product you build is certainly yours to release however you see fit, but if I’m looking for open source software and I find this I’m going to be extremely skeptical of everything you say. On top of that, the license itself is actually incredibly restrictive. I’m not a lawyer, but my read of the section on economic value seems very broad: > does not include uses where the Software facilitates any transaction of economic value other than on Allowed Networks. My read of “facilitates any transaction of economic value” means that I would be in violation if I used this to keep track of trading cards, made a grocery list, or tried to keep track of what I want to buy my friends for their birthdays. At least it would if I installed this on my home server and accessed it from the couch on mh phone.
- pronkin 3y ago
  Thank you the comment, it's clear that licence is not clear and we need to improve. Our idea is straightforward: if you want to use the software, you can do so for free, whether for personal use or within an organization. However, if you aim to sell it for profit, you need to contribute to its creation in some way; this is why permission is required. At least, that's the case at this early stage.
  - mbreese 3y ago
    Serious question - did you have a lawyer write this? The license text and some of the comments here lead me to believe that it wasn’t done by a lawyer. If not, you should really talk to a lawyer first about this. Preferably one with knowledge of open source licensing. New software licenses are tricky and should be done by a lawyer and not by random HN comments. (Even if this is an overly well informed set of users on software).
pgeorgi 3y ago
The problem is that proprietary licenses (such as Source Available) are viral: whatever they touch becomes proprietary. As such, "most repos are open source" (from what I can see: MIT, some forked ones Apache 2.0) is nice, but the end product still isn't open source according to OSD. There are people who value using "Open Source" for OSD-compliant licenses only (I tend to agree with that notion to keep things clear), but I didn't really want to discuss this: It's your project, after all, license as you wish. I just wanted to provide a heads-up that the use of "open source" in the header here (and the front page on your site) doesn't match the expectations of a bunch of folks, so they know whether to look closer or not based on that. I see how making the entire situation transparent muddies the message, but "Everything is Source Available, many parts are Open Source" would already clear things up a lot.
- pronkin 3y ago
  Yep it's clear, you are right!
maxloh 3y ago
You used the word "fully", which means part of them isn't fully open source. :(

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.
    - andrewshadura 3y ago
      No, it really is. Open source is equivalent to free software in everything but definition, and does not include anything that is not free software. There are minor disagreements between different people from the two camps which licenses to accept (e.g. Debian where this definition originated from, does not consider GFDL with invariant sections free, while FSF apparently does). It really is the whole point of it, define more clearly what criteria must be fulfilled for software to be considered free software.
      - lucideer 3y ago
        > Open source is equivalent to free software in everything but definition Is this a typo?
        andrewshadura 3y ago
        No, it isn’t. Open source and free software define the same thing in different ways. FSD defines the user’s freedoms, OSD defines what the license cannot forbid. The end result is the same though.
  - dancemethis 3y ago
    It's not, because Free Software handles practical and ethical advantages as an indivisible unit, while open source focus only on promoting practical advantages.
    - andrewshadura 3y ago
      You are missing the point. The definition of free software focuses on the freedoms of the user, but these freedoms are not easy to verify against a specific software license. The practical aspect of the open source definition (which really is the Debian free software guidelines with the word Debian removed) is that it gives you a toolkit, ten criteria that a licence must fulfil to be considered free software. Importantly, when this definition was created, the alternative, the free software definition, was incomplete and lacked the freedom zero [0]. Even more importantly, that text apparently wasn’t widely known back then, and even Richard Stallman himself liked the DFSG as a definition of free software [1]. [0]: https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt [1]: https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=26875815 https://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1129863&cid=268758...
- andrewshadura 3y ago
  More specifically, their license doesn't meet these criteria of open source software (which are the same as the Debian free software guidelines): 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
- pgeorgi 3y ago
  You replied to "You deny your users the most basic freedom there is, the freedom to use your software for any purpose without discrimination." and caim that open source isn't about that. Let's see https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/ https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/, _the_ definition for open source, specifically the sections titled "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" and "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor": "The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons." "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research." So what GP claimed seems to be exactly Open Source's point, no?
  - pronkin 3y ago
    The way we crafted it is not clear. Our idea is straightforward: if you want to use the software, you can do so for free, whether for personal use or within an organization. However, if you aim to sell it for profit, you need to contribute to its creation in some way; this is why permission is required. At least, that's the case at this early stage.
    - Kerrick 3y ago
      That means it's zero-cost and source available, not open source. As it's your software that's your choice, but please don't abuse the term "open source" to describe it. It's no more "open source" than, say, DaVinci Resolve is.
      - ewan-mclean 3y ago
        [dead]
      - blacklightpy 3y ago
        > It's no more "open source" than, say, DaVinci Resolve is. DaVinci Resolve is not source available. Anytype does not restrict you from forking the code as long as it is non-commercial. And it also lets you fork the code for commercial use, if you take their permission. So it is simply a non-commercial open source license, with permission required for commercial use. Sure, not OSI Approved License™, but certainly "open source". If this was not "open source", neither would be GNU GPL, because it isn't permissive enough. This is no different from Qt's dual license except that GPL allows commercial use too. Or, like Creative Commons NC licenses, but for software.
- maxloh 3y ago
  Which is the first time? Any hacker news link?
lucideer 3y ago
> This is wrong This is a highly subjective take - it might be better to stick to objective dictionary definitions. This project clearly isn't open source, & shouldn't be advertised as such, but on the other hand the intent here is a common/popular one these days, & its not the first of its kind: I'm surprised no-one has yet coined a term for this relatively new breed of "faux-pen source" or whatever it is. Fwiw I do think it has it's place - it's certainly more than preferable to all rights reserved.
pronkin 3y ago
Our idea is straightforward: if you want to use the software, you can do so for free, whether for personal use or within an organization. However, if you aim to sell it for profit, you need to contribute to its creation in some way; this is why permission is required. At least, that's the case at this early stage.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

jasonlotito 3y ago

I was going to come here and post about how this is exactly what I've been looking for, but then I read this. So, my kneejerk reaction to this deceptive use of open source is to just say "no" and move on. However, I read through your philosphy, and I have a question. > considering the substantial R&D resources required for the application layer, we believe that businesses and networks utilizing our software for commercial purposes should contribute towards its ongoing development, allowing maintainers to support and enhance the platform. That seems to be the crux of the concern here. I can respect that. So, why do existing open source licenses not suit you? For example, you could release the software under the AGPL, and still dual-license it as you wish. Rather than assume bad faith, I'm going to give you the chance to correct yourself. At the very least, calling yourself open source at the moment is deceptive, whether you realize it or not.

blacklightpy 3y ago
I don't see the problem with using Anytype License instead of AGPL. AGPL allows commercial use as long as the source code is provided, while Anytype disallows commercial use. Other than that it is the same, and is "open source" regardless. As in, OSI doesn't trademark "open source".
pronkin 3y ago
The most of are repost are open-sourced with MIT licence. It's clear now, that the way we put words together in the license for clients is not clear. Our idea is straightforward: if you want to use the software, you can do so for free, whether for personal use or within an organization. However, if you aim to sell it for profit(like change the logo and put price tag on it), you need to contribute to its creation in some way; this is why permission is required. At least, that's the case at this early stage.

rebeccaskinner 3y ago

Using the term Open Source for a product when most of the code is under a license that isn’t Open Source feels dishonest to me. The product you build is certainly yours to release however you see fit, but if I’m looking for open source software and I find this I’m going to be extremely skeptical of everything you say. On top of that, the license itself is actually incredibly restrictive. I’m not a lawyer, but my read of the section on economic value seems very broad: > does not include uses where the Software facilitates any transaction of economic value other than on Allowed Networks. My read of “facilitates any transaction of economic value” means that I would be in violation if I used this to keep track of trading cards, made a grocery list, or tried to keep track of what I want to buy my friends for their birthdays. At least it would if I installed this on my home server and accessed it from the couch on mh phone.

pronkin 3y ago
Thank you the comment, it's clear that licence is not clear and we need to improve. Our idea is straightforward: if you want to use the software, you can do so for free, whether for personal use or within an organization. However, if you aim to sell it for profit, you need to contribute to its creation in some way; this is why permission is required. At least, that's the case at this early stage.
- mbreese 3y ago
  Serious question - did you have a lawyer write this? The license text and some of the comments here lead me to believe that it wasn’t done by a lawyer. If not, you should really talk to a lawyer first about this. Preferably one with knowledge of open source licensing. New software licenses are tricky and should be done by a lawyer and not by random HN comments. (Even if this is an overly well informed set of users on software).

pgeorgi 3y ago

The problem is that proprietary licenses (such as Source Available) are viral: whatever they touch becomes proprietary. As such, "most repos are open source" (from what I can see: MIT, some forked ones Apache 2.0) is nice, but the end product still isn't open source according to OSD. There are people who value using "Open Source" for OSD-compliant licenses only (I tend to agree with that notion to keep things clear), but I didn't really want to discuss this: It's your project, after all, license as you wish. I just wanted to provide a heads-up that the use of "open source" in the header here (and the front page on your site) doesn't match the expectations of a bunch of folks, so they know whether to look closer or not based on that. I see how making the entire situation transparent muddies the message, but "Everything is Source Available, many parts are Open Source" would already clear things up a lot.

pronkin 3y ago
Yep it's clear, you are right!

maxloh 3y ago

You used the word "fully", which means part of them isn't fully open source. :(