3 ms·

You're taking an explicitly pro rentier stance here and seeking to shame a business model that actually supports the development of open source. Youre on the s

by pydry 3y ago

You're taking an explicitly pro rentier stance here and seeking to shame a business model that actually supports the development of open source. Youre on the side of embrace, extend, extinguish. These licenses exist because rentiers like Amazon and Microsoft are using their hosting market dominance to charge rents on open source and undermining the business model of companies like Elastic Search that actually create it.

tedivm 3y ago
Oh please. I am not saying they're required to be open source. I'm not saying they shouldn't be shared source. I'm simply saying they shouldn't lie about being open source. If CodeCov had the exact same license with the exact same restrictions, but didn't lie in their messaging, I wouldn't be commenting about it.
- pydry 3y ago
  Oh please is exactly what I thought when I read your comment. This is open source. It's entirely within the spirit of the movement. The political imperative to twist the definition comes from tech monopolists, angry at a new wave of licenses that inhibit their ability to profit unhindered. You're getting outraged on their behalf.
  - tedivm 3y ago
    Read the first line of the BSL license- > The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License. The only way you can argue that it's open source is if you're purposefully trying to deceive people.
mort96 3y ago
Just don't fucking call your software open source when it's not open source. Don't try to leech off the goodwill people have towards open source by falsely claiming that your software is open source.
- pydry 3y ago
  It's open source hated by big tech that undermines Jeff Bezos's goodwill. It provides a revenue stream to actually pay developers to create more useful open source. That's where the political imperative to gatekeep the term comes from.
  - mort96 3y ago
    It's not open source. Many people find it easier (or think it's easier) to generate a revenue stream from selling closed source software than from selling open source software, so they decide to make their software closed source. We need to gatekeep terms for them to retain their meaning. We can't just accept it when tech companies try to change the meaning of "open source" to mean "we published the source code so you can read it". The term source-available exists, and it means something different from open source. If these people announced that they're making their software source-available, everyone would be happy, but they're not.

by pydry 3y ago

tedivm 3y ago

Oh please. I am not saying they're required to be open source. I'm not saying they shouldn't be shared source. I'm simply saying they shouldn't lie about being open source. If CodeCov had the exact same license with the exact same restrictions, but didn't lie in their messaging, I wouldn't be commenting about it.

pydry 3y ago
Oh please is exactly what I thought when I read your comment. This is open source. It's entirely within the spirit of the movement. The political imperative to twist the definition comes from tech monopolists, angry at a new wave of licenses that inhibit their ability to profit unhindered. You're getting outraged on their behalf.
- tedivm 3y ago
  Read the first line of the BSL license- > The Business Source License (this document, or the "License") is not an Open Source license. However, the Licensed Work will eventually be made available under an Open Source License, as stated in this License. The only way you can argue that it's open source is if you're purposefully trying to deceive people.

mort96 3y ago

Just don't fucking call your software open source when it's not open source. Don't try to leech off the goodwill people have towards open source by falsely claiming that your software is open source.

pydry 3y ago
It's open source hated by big tech that undermines Jeff Bezos's goodwill. It provides a revenue stream to actually pay developers to create more useful open source. That's where the political imperative to gatekeep the term comes from.
- mort96 3y ago
  It's not open source. Many people find it easier (or think it's easier) to generate a revenue stream from selling closed source software than from selling open source software, so they decide to make their software closed source. We need to gatekeep terms for them to retain their meaning. We can't just accept it when tech companies try to change the meaning of "open source" to mean "we published the source code so you can read it". The term source-available exists, and it means something different from open source. If these people announced that they're making their software source-available, everyone would be happy, but they're not.