4 ms·

> any software whose license doesn't belong to the OSI's list is proprietary software. This is an absurd interpretation from someone who does not understand wh

by brabel 3y ago

> any software whose license doesn't belong to the OSI's list is proprietary software. This is an absurd interpretation from someone who does not understand why people actually even care about Open Source. Any license that meets the currently accepted definition of "Open Source" should be considered "Open Source" (tautological, I know). Whether it's in a list by some organization or not is mostly irrelevant. Having the OSI list is useful only because it helps people check whether a certain license adheres to the definition or not... but if the license is not in the list, you could still check yourself whether it meets the definition, and if it does, it's Open Source. Now, one could argue about who "owns" the definition of Open Source... well, then yes, I would agree that OSI's is the most widely accepted definition and everyone does well to try to follow that. That does NOT imply only OSI has the right to claim a license is open source!

ReleaseCandidat 3y ago
> the currently accepted definition of "Open Source" And that's the problem. I'd say anything between (and including) "Source is available" and "only Free Software" is sufficiently common.
- commoner 3y ago
  Not really. People commonly misuse "their", "there", and "they're", but doesn't change the currently accepted definitions of these words. The OSI's Open Source Definition gains credibility from its broad support from the FOSS community, and because it has been explicitly recognized by quite a few governments: https://opensource.org/authority https://opensource.org/authority
bayindirh 3y ago
Well, starting from your point, I can write my software as a complete blob and add its 10 line launcher as a small source file, license that 10 line launcher as MIT, while adding a very restrictive EULA to the blob. Then put it out as open source. Makes sense.
- commoner 3y ago
  In your example, the launcher would be open source but the blob would not. When you look at the proportions of the code in the combined software, it would be obvious that the majority of the code is proprietary and that the software as a whole is mostly closed source.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    Like the SaaS apps which are touted as "open source" with small open source clients which are not functional without the closed source backends (or with open source backends which you can't install because of a couple of non-intentionally missing important bits)? Or like Nvidia's new drivers which are "open source", but all the meaningful parts are either buried in the card or in closed source libraries? Or like VSCode where the plugins which matter are closed source and it's "open source sibling" VSCodium is banned from using the majority of the plugins? If the 99.9999% of the tool is open source, but non-functional without that closed bits, can we say the software is open source? The four freedoms matter, and this is what OSI says, too.
    - commoner 3y ago
      We're in full agreement here. It's dishonest to describe software as open source when it is not operational without key components that the developer intentionally made closed source. I would be fine with them saying that the software is "partially open source" and explaining up front exactly which parts of the software are open and which are closed. As a whole, if a piece of software is non-functional without a proprietary component, then it is not open source.
- brabel 3y ago
  Can you explain the connection between your comment and what my comment said? I fail to see any.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    The problem with your perspective from my point of view, is how convoluted the licenses can be. Licenses are legal text by nature, and some of them are pretty convoluted. I can write an open-source license with a sneaky retroactive licensing loophole, and create problems for anyone forking/using my code with that theoretical license. Similar landmines can be implemented in bad faith or loopholes can be found in good-faith licenses (TiVoization, anyone?). So, just because a license satisfies four freedoms doesn't make a piece of software "Open Source". So a body examining licenses and saying that it's acceptable or not is a good thing to have. We have been reinventing things and damaging tons of stuff just because we feel like having established things is bad to start with.
kube-system 3y ago
The whole picture is not necessarily as simple as taking the license at face-value because these licenses are also legal documents. Consider the existence of casual or 'crayon' licenses. They might meet common definitions of "open source" in plain-english, yet, it could be questionable as to whether they would be enforced that way in a court, either due to lack of real world use or due to legal issues with their construction. The question, "does a license which says it meets the definition of open source, but might not actually be enforceable" is not one that open source advocates agree on, even if they agree on the definition.

by brabel 3y ago

ReleaseCandidat 3y ago

> the currently accepted definition of "Open Source" And that's the problem. I'd say anything between (and including) "Source is available" and "only Free Software" is sufficiently common.

commoner 3y ago
Not really. People commonly misuse "their", "there", and "they're", but doesn't change the currently accepted definitions of these words. The OSI's Open Source Definition gains credibility from its broad support from the FOSS community, and because it has been explicitly recognized by quite a few governments: https://opensource.org/authority https://opensource.org/authority

bayindirh 3y ago

Well, starting from your point, I can write my software as a complete blob and add its 10 line launcher as a small source file, license that 10 line launcher as MIT, while adding a very restrictive EULA to the blob. Then put it out as open source. Makes sense.

commoner 3y ago
In your example, the launcher would be open source but the blob would not. When you look at the proportions of the code in the combined software, it would be obvious that the majority of the code is proprietary and that the software as a whole is mostly closed source.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  Like the SaaS apps which are touted as "open source" with small open source clients which are not functional without the closed source backends (or with open source backends which you can't install because of a couple of non-intentionally missing important bits)? Or like Nvidia's new drivers which are "open source", but all the meaningful parts are either buried in the card or in closed source libraries? Or like VSCode where the plugins which matter are closed source and it's "open source sibling" VSCodium is banned from using the majority of the plugins? If the 99.9999% of the tool is open source, but non-functional without that closed bits, can we say the software is open source? The four freedoms matter, and this is what OSI says, too.
  - commoner 3y ago
    We're in full agreement here. It's dishonest to describe software as open source when it is not operational without key components that the developer intentionally made closed source. I would be fine with them saying that the software is "partially open source" and explaining up front exactly which parts of the software are open and which are closed. As a whole, if a piece of software is non-functional without a proprietary component, then it is not open source.
brabel 3y ago
Can you explain the connection between your comment and what my comment said? I fail to see any.
- bayindirh 3y ago
  The problem with your perspective from my point of view, is how convoluted the licenses can be. Licenses are legal text by nature, and some of them are pretty convoluted. I can write an open-source license with a sneaky retroactive licensing loophole, and create problems for anyone forking/using my code with that theoretical license. Similar landmines can be implemented in bad faith or loopholes can be found in good-faith licenses (TiVoization, anyone?). So, just because a license satisfies four freedoms doesn't make a piece of software "Open Source". So a body examining licenses and saying that it's acceptable or not is a good thing to have. We have been reinventing things and damaging tons of stuff just because we feel like having established things is bad to start with.

kube-system 3y ago

The whole picture is not necessarily as simple as taking the license at face-value because these licenses are also legal documents. Consider the existence of casual or 'crayon' licenses. They might meet common definitions of "open source" in plain-english, yet, it could be questionable as to whether they would be enforced that way in a court, either due to lack of real world use or due to legal issues with their construction. The question, "does a license which says it meets the definition of open source, but might not actually be enforceable" is not one that open source advocates agree on, even if they agree on the definition.