3 ms·

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

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.
  - commoner 3y ago
    > So, just because a license satisfies four freedoms doesn't make a piece of software "Open Source". It wasn't clear what your intent was when you presented your example, since it does not actually illustrate your point. A piece of software consisting of a proprietary blob coupled with a minimal open source launcher is closed source as a whole because the majority of the software is closed source. That software does not satisfy the four freedoms, and is therefore not open source. > So a body examining licenses and saying that it's acceptable or not is a good thing to have. Yes, the OSI and FSF are important for establishing clear standards, and for helping developers and users identify exactly which licenses meet those standards.
    - bayindirh 3y ago
      It was exaggerated example on purpose, but it's not very far from the truth. Many "Open Source" projects are licensed under a permissive or weak-copyleft license, everything incl. the source is put out there, hence you have the four freedoms, theoretically. A nice example: Try to "run" GitBook in a self hosted manner. You're free to do that. The code is out there. The license allows it, but there's no docs, and code is a landmine, probably. As I said before, try to use VSCodium in a useful manner. You won't be able to do that. You can incorporate parts of it to your tools, but it won't work as well as the "closed source, official" VSCode, because it's designed to be like that [0]. So, saying that every license allowing four freedoms is an open source license, or even saying that "every application which has a valid, vetted Open Source license" is Open Source software is a stretch nowadays. Lastly, we seen that not many companies thought about the ramifications of open sourcing their code properly. Elastic & HashiCorp are just two examples we made some noise about. [0]: https://ghuntley.com/fracture/ https://ghuntley.com/fracture/

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.
- commoner 3y ago
  > So, just because a license satisfies four freedoms doesn't make a piece of software "Open Source". It wasn't clear what your intent was when you presented your example, since it does not actually illustrate your point. A piece of software consisting of a proprietary blob coupled with a minimal open source launcher is closed source as a whole because the majority of the software is closed source. That software does not satisfy the four freedoms, and is therefore not open source. > So a body examining licenses and saying that it's acceptable or not is a good thing to have. Yes, the OSI and FSF are important for establishing clear standards, and for helping developers and users identify exactly which licenses meet those standards.
  - bayindirh 3y ago
    It was exaggerated example on purpose, but it's not very far from the truth. Many "Open Source" projects are licensed under a permissive or weak-copyleft license, everything incl. the source is put out there, hence you have the four freedoms, theoretically. A nice example: Try to "run" GitBook in a self hosted manner. You're free to do that. The code is out there. The license allows it, but there's no docs, and code is a landmine, probably. As I said before, try to use VSCodium in a useful manner. You won't be able to do that. You can incorporate parts of it to your tools, but it won't work as well as the "closed source, official" VSCode, because it's designed to be like that [0]. So, saying that every license allowing four freedoms is an open source license, or even saying that "every application which has a valid, vetted Open Source license" is Open Source software is a stretch nowadays. Lastly, we seen that not many companies thought about the ramifications of open sourcing their code properly. Elastic & HashiCorp are just two examples we made some noise about. [0]: https://ghuntley.com/fracture/ https://ghuntley.com/fracture/