4 ms·

> The purpose of your entire article is to label the Open Source Initiative as "irrelevant" so that you can promote a weaker definition of the term open source

> The purpose of your entire article is to label the Open Source Initiative as "irrelevant" so that you can promote a weaker definition of the term open source that does not protect the freedom of users to use the software as they wish. The current definition allows all users to use the open source software as they wish. The problem is that, as we have learned through experience, some of those users are multi-billion dollar companies who are happy to exploit this unrestricted freedom at the expense of destroying the open source projects. LLaMA 2 expects you to apply for a license only if you have "greater than 700 million monthly active users in the preceding calendar month". The open source initiative corporation relies on financial help from companies like Amazon, Google, and Microsoft. It's not surprising that they are vocal about LLaMA's terms. If you don't have 700 million monthly active users and are not sponsored by tech giants, you're probably fighting for the wrong side. The new definition may be "weaker" or "stronger" depending on your agenda. For one, it would give users the right to protect their privacy. But, this also means that it takes away the freedom to collect and monetize information without users' consent.

erik_seaberg 3y ago
Competition is healthy, not hostile. If a project thinks it needs a monopoly on paid hosting and services, we should be very cautious about locking ourselves into it or contributing. The doc ought to cover the history that led into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition (especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...). It didn’t appear out of nowhere and a lot of thought went into it.
- JasonGoldman 3y ago
  Healthy competition is healthy, but there are competitors who are hostile. If you're referring to projects like MongoDB, the SSPL license doesn't give them (or anyone else) monopoly power. It's quite the opposite: "[The Server Side Public License (SSPL)] includes most of the text and provisions of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 (AGPL v3), and primarily replaces section 13 [...] with a new section that requires that anyone who offers the functionality of SSPL-licensed software to third-parties as a service must release the entirety of their source code, including all software, APIs, and other software that would be required for a user to run an instance of the service themselves, under the SSPL. In contrast, the AGPL v3's section 13 covers only the program itself (the copyrightable work licensed under AGPL v3)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License
  - commoner 3y ago
    The SSPL does give MongoDB Inc. monopoly power by ensuring that only MongoDB Inc. can offer proprietary closed source software services in conjunction with MongoDB, while other vendors may only offer source-available software services in conjunction with MongoDB (unless they purchase a commercial proprietary software license from MongoDB Inc.). This means without a separate proprietary software license, the SSPL does not allow other vendors to offer something like MongoDB's proprietary closed source Developer Data Platform (https://www.mongodb.com/developer-data-platform https://www.mongodb.com/developer-data-platform) without releasing any of the corresponding source code for the software that interacts with MongoDB. The FOSS community, including the Free Software Foundation, Open Source Initiative, Debian Project, and Fedora Project, all recognize that because the SSPL requires users to release source code for software that the original developer (MongoDB Inc.) did not create, the SSPL is not a free software license or an open source software license. Free and open source software allows any user to use the software for any purpose (even if that purpose involves other proprietary software) and the SSPL does not. MongoDB Inc. decided to restrict competition by using its SSPL instead of a FOSS license. By doing so, the company made MongoDB source-available instead of open source.
    - JasonGoldman 3y ago
      I wouldn't call it monopoly, because you are allowed to use it as a service, but I get your point. Yes, MongoDB doesn't have to pay itself a licensing fee since it's their own software while others should if they choose to make the software closed-source. It's only problematic if you want no restrictions in monetizing someone else's work as a web service but want to restrict others from doing just that with your work and on top of that you are not willing to pay for exclusive privileges. I find this expectation unreasonable and unfair. A fair definition of open source should allow commensalistic relationships (in which users use the software but do not contribute back) but not parasitic relationships (when users exploit the software in a way that is detrimental to the project).
      - commoner 3y ago
        Why are you so intent on hijacking the term open source to refer to software that does not preserve the user's freedom to use the software as they wish? The goal of open source software is to preserve the user's freedoms, not to preserve the developer's ability to profit from the software. Other people have already invented a term for source-available software that is not open source due to restrictions on commercial use. It's called "fair-code", which is a term that encapsulates the ideals you're looking for: https://faircode.io https://faircode.io There's no reason to weaken the definition of the term open source when there are already other terms to describe source-available software that is not open source.
commoner 3y ago
> The current definition allows all users to use the open source software as they wish. And there's no problem with that. If you want to restrict how your software is used while making the source publicly available, then go ahead and release your source-available software. However, mislabeling your restricted source-available software as open source will earn you opposition from all of the FOSS developers who do grant all of their users the ability to use their software as they wish, and from all of the FOSS users who are specifically looking for all of the freedoms afforded by FOSS licenses. Marketing restricted source-available software as open source is like mislabeling your product as "Made in Country X" when it is only assembled in Country X while all the parts are manufactured in Country Y. What you are trying to do to the term open source is like proposing that the definition of "Made in Country X" be changed so that it encompasses products that are not actually made in Country X. It's misleading and nobody appreciates that. The philosophy of open source software revolves around software being available for anyone to use for any reason. Open source software developers know that among all of the users of their software, a portion of those users will more than likely be people or companies they dislike who use it for reasons they find reprehensible. Any developer who wants to limit the people or uses of their software can do so by adopting a restrictive source-available license, but by doing so, that software is not open source anymore. > For one, it would give users the right to protect their privacy. Absolutely not. Using a license to restrict what users do with software does not protect their privacy. There is nothing about MongoDB's source-available Server Side Public License that is better for user privacy than the open source MIT License and AGPLv3. There is also something deeply ironic about suggesting that Meta, a company known for its privacy violations, is somehow preserving user privacy by making its software source-available instead of open source.
- JasonGoldman 3y ago
  It is definitely an option to keep the definition of open source as it is today. But I don't think it's beneficial. Unlike "Made in Country" that can be interpreted by understanding the meaning of the words, the definition of "open source" is not about semantics at all. Although referred to as "definition", it's really a set of rules historically decided by OSI. It's meant to be revised and it actually did until version 1.9. Think of OSD as land transport rules from 1997. It's not wise to insist that we should use the same rules today, or if we come up with more relevant rules we should call them something other than land transport rules. On a relevant note, I find "hackable software" a more accurate term for what's advertised as "free" and "open source" software. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-is-hackable-software/22 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-is-hackable-software/22 The term "open source" is already hijacked by companies for their financial gain. Preventing improvements to the definition would help them, but not the open source community. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/is-open-source-relevant-to-your-needs/18 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/is-open-source-relevant-to-your... > There is nothing about MongoDB's source-available Server Side Public License that is better for user privacy than the open source MIT License and AGPLv3. When I mentioned privacy, I was referring the the upcoming definition (that is not published yet).

erik_seaberg 3y ago

Competition is healthy, not hostile. If a project thinks it needs a monopoly on paid hosting and services, we should be very cautious about locking ourselves into it or contributing. The doc ought to cover the history that led into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition (especially https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition and the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guidelines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debian_Free_Software_Guideline...). It didn’t appear out of nowhere and a lot of thought went into it.

JasonGoldman 3y ago
Healthy competition is healthy, but there are competitors who are hostile. If you're referring to projects like MongoDB, the SSPL license doesn't give them (or anyone else) monopoly power. It's quite the opposite: "[The Server Side Public License (SSPL)] includes most of the text and provisions of the GNU Affero General Public License version 3 (AGPL v3), and primarily replaces section 13 [...] with a new section that requires that anyone who offers the functionality of SSPL-licensed software to third-parties as a service must release the entirety of their source code, including all software, APIs, and other software that would be required for a user to run an instance of the service themselves, under the SSPL. In contrast, the AGPL v3's section 13 covers only the program itself (the copyrightable work licensed under AGPL v3)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License
- commoner 3y ago
  The SSPL does give MongoDB Inc. monopoly power by ensuring that only MongoDB Inc. can offer proprietary closed source software services in conjunction with MongoDB, while other vendors may only offer source-available software services in conjunction with MongoDB (unless they purchase a commercial proprietary software license from MongoDB Inc.). This means without a separate proprietary software license, the SSPL does not allow other vendors to offer something like MongoDB's proprietary closed source Developer Data Platform (https://www.mongodb.com/developer-data-platform https://www.mongodb.com/developer-data-platform) without releasing any of the corresponding source code for the software that interacts with MongoDB. The FOSS community, including the Free Software Foundation, Open Source Initiative, Debian Project, and Fedora Project, all recognize that because the SSPL requires users to release source code for software that the original developer (MongoDB Inc.) did not create, the SSPL is not a free software license or an open source software license. Free and open source software allows any user to use the software for any purpose (even if that purpose involves other proprietary software) and the SSPL does not. MongoDB Inc. decided to restrict competition by using its SSPL instead of a FOSS license. By doing so, the company made MongoDB source-available instead of open source.
  - JasonGoldman 3y ago
    I wouldn't call it monopoly, because you are allowed to use it as a service, but I get your point. Yes, MongoDB doesn't have to pay itself a licensing fee since it's their own software while others should if they choose to make the software closed-source. It's only problematic if you want no restrictions in monetizing someone else's work as a web service but want to restrict others from doing just that with your work and on top of that you are not willing to pay for exclusive privileges. I find this expectation unreasonable and unfair. A fair definition of open source should allow commensalistic relationships (in which users use the software but do not contribute back) but not parasitic relationships (when users exploit the software in a way that is detrimental to the project).
    - commoner 3y ago
      Why are you so intent on hijacking the term open source to refer to software that does not preserve the user's freedom to use the software as they wish? The goal of open source software is to preserve the user's freedoms, not to preserve the developer's ability to profit from the software. Other people have already invented a term for source-available software that is not open source due to restrictions on commercial use. It's called "fair-code", which is a term that encapsulates the ideals you're looking for: https://faircode.io https://faircode.io There's no reason to weaken the definition of the term open source when there are already other terms to describe source-available software that is not open source.

commoner 3y ago

> The current definition allows all users to use the open source software as they wish. And there's no problem with that. If you want to restrict how your software is used while making the source publicly available, then go ahead and release your source-available software. However, mislabeling your restricted source-available software as open source will earn you opposition from all of the FOSS developers who do grant all of their users the ability to use their software as they wish, and from all of the FOSS users who are specifically looking for all of the freedoms afforded by FOSS licenses. Marketing restricted source-available software as open source is like mislabeling your product as "Made in Country X" when it is only assembled in Country X while all the parts are manufactured in Country Y. What you are trying to do to the term open source is like proposing that the definition of "Made in Country X" be changed so that it encompasses products that are not actually made in Country X. It's misleading and nobody appreciates that. The philosophy of open source software revolves around software being available for anyone to use for any reason. Open source software developers know that among all of the users of their software, a portion of those users will more than likely be people or companies they dislike who use it for reasons they find reprehensible. Any developer who wants to limit the people or uses of their software can do so by adopting a restrictive source-available license, but by doing so, that software is not open source anymore. > For one, it would give users the right to protect their privacy. Absolutely not. Using a license to restrict what users do with software does not protect their privacy. There is nothing about MongoDB's source-available Server Side Public License that is better for user privacy than the open source MIT License and AGPLv3. There is also something deeply ironic about suggesting that Meta, a company known for its privacy violations, is somehow preserving user privacy by making its software source-available instead of open source.

JasonGoldman 3y ago
It is definitely an option to keep the definition of open source as it is today. But I don't think it's beneficial. Unlike "Made in Country" that can be interpreted by understanding the meaning of the words, the definition of "open source" is not about semantics at all. Although referred to as "definition", it's really a set of rules historically decided by OSI. It's meant to be revised and it actually did until version 1.9. Think of OSD as land transport rules from 1997. It's not wise to insist that we should use the same rules today, or if we come up with more relevant rules we should call them something other than land transport rules. On a relevant note, I find "hackable software" a more accurate term for what's advertised as "free" and "open source" software. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-is-hackable-software/22 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-is-hackable-software/22 The term "open source" is already hijacked by companies for their financial gain. Preventing improvements to the definition would help them, but not the open source community. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/is-open-source-relevant-to-your-needs/18 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/is-open-source-relevant-to-your... > There is nothing about MongoDB's source-available Server Side Public License that is better for user privacy than the open source MIT License and AGPLv3. When I mentioned privacy, I was referring the the upcoming definition (that is not published yet).