6 ms·

> I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means out of survival. I don't think this is happening at all. Open source means the same thing it's al

> I argue the window is moving as to what “open source” means out of survival. I don't think this is happening at all. Open source means the same thing it's always meant. Some people are just retreating from open source. Which is fine, they should be writing Free Software anyway if they want the world to have it, or use proprietary licenses if they don't. Otherwise very wealthy people will live on your back.

JohnFen 3y ago
I agree. But there are an awful lot of younger devs who really do seem to confuse "open source" with "source available". It's worth educating people about this.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  So, I don't think this is a generational thing. I think most people of all ages and generations have mostly just not thought about this. But the reason more people are thinking about it now is that the distribution model has changed on a way that has highlighted an existential weakness with this model.
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    I lack data, so I cannot say anything broadly. But in the devs that I know, this is 100% a generational thing. It may be different in different circles.
    - sanderjd 3y ago
      :shrug: your mileage may vary.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
School-Cotton 3y ago
“Free software” and “open source” mean the same thing.
sanderjd 3y ago
My perspective is more like the parent's. As someone who has grown up along with open source, I've found it surprising recently how up in arms people are about how critical the ability for anyone to commercialize a project is for the definition of open source. To me, I care a lot about whether I can see how software is implemented, and modify it for my own use, but it has never really occurred to me that I need to have the right to commercialize any arbitrary project. But :shrug: I guess different people care about different things, is what I've realized watching these discussions unfold. But I do think this purist perspective on open source is just going to result in more Snowflakes and fewer Hashicorps, because why bother with this fight?
- orra 3y ago
  > But I do think this purist perspective on open source is just going to result in more Snowflakes and fewer Hashicorps, because why bother with this fight? Orgs like Hashicorp clearly think they benefit by pretending to be open source. They could simply stop being disingenuous about their source available proprietary software, and nobody would stop them.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    First of all, as is probably clear if you read my comments on this, I personally think it would be better if the definition of "open source" did not exclude this kind of re-sale limitation. I don't think it's intuitive at all that this is required to fit the definition of "open source". It seems to me like a tacked on ideological stance from the gatekeeper of the definition, that isn't present in or implied by the words themselves. But while that's what I think, it isn't at all the view espoused here by Hashicorp. They aren't claiming this is open source. They are accepting the OSI definition and not claiming their new license falls within it. They aren't being disingenuous. You're putting words in their mouth, and then getting mad at them about those words they didn't say.
    - orra 3y ago
      > They aren't being disingenuous. You're putting words in their mouth, and then getting mad at them about those words they didn't say. No, they say open source needs to evolve, the implication this is an evolution (not devolution) of open source. Their announcement talks about how they spoke to OSS experts. That's not relevant: the experts would simply have said: that's not open source. Hashicorp several times say the BSL is permissive. Permissive is a well established term in software licensing. No, the BSL is not. The BSD and MIT and Apache licenses are permissive. Finally there is this claptrap from their FAQ: > 17. Does HashiCorp still believe in open source? > > Yes. [...]
dragonwriter 3y ago
The OSI Open Source Definition and the FSF Free Software Definition are for most practical purposes identical (and most licenses meet both or neither); historically, the Open Source and Free Software communities have somewhat different reasons for preferring the same thing, but the things are the same.
- hkt 3y ago
  Not so: open source licenses tend not to have any clauses requiring reciprocation, free software licenses do. Think MIT or BSD vs GPL.
  - davidgerard 3y ago
    I urge you to look up the open source definition at OSI. It doesn't say that at all.
  - account42 3y ago
    That distinction is what makes copyleft licenses. Free software is just as overarching as open source, see e.g. the FSF's list of free software licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    MIT, BSD, and GPL are all on both OSI’s list of Open Source licenses and the FSF’s list of Free Software licenses. Yes, the FSF has a general preference that people use copyleft licenses like the GPL, but they recognize that permissive licenses meet the Free Software Definition.
  - pxc 3y ago
    GPL is an open-source license, and MIT-licensed software is free software. The difference between free software and open-source is a matter of marketing. Open-source is a way of presenting free software to businesses and investors. Free software is an unabashedly political movement, openly concerned first and foremost with the public good. But the licenses themselves and the software itself, those things are identical.

JohnFen 3y ago

I agree. But there are an awful lot of younger devs who really do seem to confuse "open source" with "source available". It's worth educating people about this.

sanderjd 3y ago
So, I don't think this is a generational thing. I think most people of all ages and generations have mostly just not thought about this. But the reason more people are thinking about it now is that the distribution model has changed on a way that has highlighted an existential weakness with this model.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  I lack data, so I cannot say anything broadly. But in the devs that I know, this is 100% a generational thing. It may be different in different circles.
  - sanderjd 3y ago
    :shrug: your mileage may vary.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

School-Cotton 3y ago

“Free software” and “open source” mean the same thing.

sanderjd 3y ago

My perspective is more like the parent's. As someone who has grown up along with open source, I've found it surprising recently how up in arms people are about how critical the ability for anyone to commercialize a project is for the definition of open source. To me, I care a lot about whether I can see how software is implemented, and modify it for my own use, but it has never really occurred to me that I need to have the right to commercialize any arbitrary project. But :shrug: I guess different people care about different things, is what I've realized watching these discussions unfold. But I do think this purist perspective on open source is just going to result in more Snowflakes and fewer Hashicorps, because why bother with this fight?

orra 3y ago
> But I do think this purist perspective on open source is just going to result in more Snowflakes and fewer Hashicorps, because why bother with this fight? Orgs like Hashicorp clearly think they benefit by pretending to be open source. They could simply stop being disingenuous about their source available proprietary software, and nobody would stop them.
- sanderjd 3y ago
  First of all, as is probably clear if you read my comments on this, I personally think it would be better if the definition of "open source" did not exclude this kind of re-sale limitation. I don't think it's intuitive at all that this is required to fit the definition of "open source". It seems to me like a tacked on ideological stance from the gatekeeper of the definition, that isn't present in or implied by the words themselves. But while that's what I think, it isn't at all the view espoused here by Hashicorp. They aren't claiming this is open source. They are accepting the OSI definition and not claiming their new license falls within it. They aren't being disingenuous. You're putting words in their mouth, and then getting mad at them about those words they didn't say.
  - orra 3y ago
    > They aren't being disingenuous. You're putting words in their mouth, and then getting mad at them about those words they didn't say. No, they say open source needs to evolve, the implication this is an evolution (not devolution) of open source. Their announcement talks about how they spoke to OSS experts. That's not relevant: the experts would simply have said: that's not open source. Hashicorp several times say the BSL is permissive. Permissive is a well established term in software licensing. No, the BSL is not. The BSD and MIT and Apache licenses are permissive. Finally there is this claptrap from their FAQ: > 17. Does HashiCorp still believe in open source? > > Yes. [...]

dragonwriter 3y ago

The OSI Open Source Definition and the FSF Free Software Definition are for most practical purposes identical (and most licenses meet both or neither); historically, the Open Source and Free Software communities have somewhat different reasons for preferring the same thing, but the things are the same.

hkt 3y ago
Not so: open source licenses tend not to have any clauses requiring reciprocation, free software licenses do. Think MIT or BSD vs GPL.
- davidgerard 3y ago
  I urge you to look up the open source definition at OSI. It doesn't say that at all.
- account42 3y ago
  That distinction is what makes copyleft licenses. Free software is just as overarching as open source, see e.g. the FSF's list of free software licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  MIT, BSD, and GPL are all on both OSI’s list of Open Source licenses and the FSF’s list of Free Software licenses. Yes, the FSF has a general preference that people use copyleft licenses like the GPL, but they recognize that permissive licenses meet the Free Software Definition.
- pxc 3y ago
  GPL is an open-source license, and MIT-licensed software is free software. The difference between free software and open-source is a matter of marketing. Open-source is a way of presenting free software to businesses and investors. Free software is an unabashedly political movement, openly concerned first and foremost with the public good. But the licenses themselves and the software itself, those things are identical.