3 ms·
> literally trying to change the definition of open source 1. The only way for businesses to release their core products under OSI-approved licenses is through
by whit537 3y ago
> literally trying to change the definition of open source
1. The only way for businesses to release their core products under OSI-approved licenses is through a time delay such as the BSL.
2. It's good for businesses to release their core products under OSI-approved licenses.
3. Therefore, some concept of time-delayed release must be included in the definition of open source.
I'll concede that this is an evolution or refinement of the definition of open source, but not a change to the essence.
[disclosure: I'm Head of Open Source at Sentry, which owns Codecov.]
- tedivm 3y agoIt's kind of crappy for you and others at Sentry to attempt to unilaterally change the definition of open source, despite the fact that there clearly is opposition to it.
- whit537 3y agoWhy do you say unilaterally? MariaDB wrote the BSL, not us. Sentry is far from the only company with the problem of wanting to open-source its core products without exposing itself to the risk of other companies cannibalizing our business model without contributing to product development. This is an existential threat and the BSL protects us from it so we can keep improving Sentry.
- Terretta 3y ago"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." BSL doesn't try to redefine open source, it's clear it's transitional. So you're trying to do something MariaDB didn't do and the BSL doesn't do.
- Terretta 3y ago> Therefore, some concept of time-delayed release must be included in the definition of open source. Or, you know, use the existing definitions for that transitional stage. Your assertion is neither "therefore" nor "must".