6 ms·

At the end of the day that is why I decided to not be open for my business. Even if you try to be on the good side its hard and you have the eternal source avai

by Sytten 3y ago

At the end of the day that is why I decided to not be open for my business. Even if you try to be on the good side its hard and you have the eternal source available vs open source debate. I wish they would develop a license friendly to both businesses that want to ship software that is source available and users of that software. One could strike a balance between full OSS and legitimate needs of the producer to live off their creation.

alexvoda 3y ago
They can use whatever licence they want. It's their software. They should only call it open source if they use an OSI-approved licence. Doing otherwise is openwashing and is frowned upon.
- squigz 3y ago
  I wonder if one reason particular groups of people have a hard time getting others to care about some issues is this tendency to make up words in order to make things sound more malicious than they are. Usually it just ends up sounding silly.
- tcfhgj 3y ago
  It would be open washing if you couldn't look at the source code, but you can.
  - alexvoda 3y ago
    Open source does not mean you can look at the source code. Open source is defined by the OSI. If it is not using and OSI-approved license and claims to be open source it is open washing. Call it shared source or something else. This is a long since settled debate.
    - tcfhgj 3y ago
      Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open. OSI isn't authoritative of the term.
      - alexvoda 3y ago
        This debate has been had many many times before and you are simply wrong. Your effort is malicious. Regardless of what other uses the word open has/had, "open source" was defined by OSI and they are authoritative over the term.
        tcfhgj 3y ago
        Malicious is the attempt to restrict open source to floss and start a shitstorm about open source but not floss software, because it prevents transparency for software where floss isn't an option. If I define climate neutral as climate positive, climate neutral doesn't become climate positive nor do I get authority of the term climate neutral.
        alexvoda 3y ago
        And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. Thank you for denouncing yourself. Some terms were defined by a community and their use defended. Others were defined by a community, appropriated by others, distorted by others and subsequently abandoned by the original community. And yet others, were abandoned and then reclaimed by the original community. "Open Source" is in the first category, defined by OSI and defended by the FLOSS community. It is actively being defended, and fish much bigger than you have failed to topple the community.
        tcfhgj 3y ago
        "And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. " Nope it's what you and OSI try to do.
      - wokwokwok 3y ago
        I honestly don’t care if it is or not, but this has been discussed to death with regard to unreal and the consensus has been (from epic) to consistently refer to the source as “available on GitHub” not as “open source”, because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license. Is this a hill you really want to die on? It doesn’t matter at all. The “can see code” = “must be open source” argument is stupid because it’s entirely opinion based. You cannot be right about it. It depends what you choose to define “open source” as. If you define it as some arbitrary thing (eg. I can read the source code) then of course you’re right. …but you can’t force other people to accept your arbitrary definition. You can only have an opinion about it. Same as anyone else. Is it really worth the argument? Source available is unambiguous, being explicit (“source can be download from GitHub”) I means you don’t have to waste your time on arguments like this for, what seems, truely trivial reasons.
    - Sytten 3y ago
      That is not a settled debate IMO, even Stallman said as much. Sure its not FOSS / FLOSS, but trying to push for a position where open source doesn't mean I can see the code is very much not agreed by everybody. EDIT: See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
      - alexvoda 3y ago
        Just like Microsofts opinion didn't matter whenever they tried to dilute the meaning of open source, and just like MongoDB's and others opinion didn't matter, your opinion doesn't matter. Microsoft is far more convincing than you and they did not win this argument. Microsoft gave up and now only calls OSI-approved licenses open source. Open Source means OSI-approved. If you can read the source code but it's not OSI-approved, than it's source-available or shared source or something else.
    - vasco 3y ago
      A judge saying something once in the history of the world doesn't make it so that you can force language on others. Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source in every day speech, and unless they were preparing legal documents that's what they'd say. If you include normal people that don't work in software, then even more likely the usage is the one you're complaining about. You sound like this: https://stallman-copypasta.github.io/ https://stallman-copypasta.github.io/
      - 6510 3y ago
        > Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source Proprietary software and closed source refer to the same thing. Most people you've interacted are wrong. sorry...
        vasco 3y ago
        Luckily I didn't mention either "closed source" or "proprietary software" in my comment. I mentioned that people colloquially use "open source" to refer to any code base that has source available to read. Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly. Other than that I think you find that people in real life don't tend to be exact in their use of language all the time, and calling understandable imprecisions "wrong" tends to decrease the number of friends you get.
        alexvoda 3y ago
        People distort words to the point of meaningless unless the use of those words are defended. "Open Source" is a term that is actively being defended. The history of the term is very clear. The term was coined by Christine Peterson in a group session in 1998 with Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann, and Eric S. Raymond. Months later the OSI was created by the same people in order to manage that definition. There is nothing unclear here. "Open source" is defined by OSI and it has been defined by them from the very start. If communities let others distort words, those words loose their meaning. As a well known example, the word "woke" which has long been abandoned by the community that coined it. "Open source" is an actively defended term by the organisation that originally defined it and the community around them.
orlandohill 3y ago
The PolyForm Project has a suite of standardized, source available licenses for when using an OSI-approved open source license is inappropriate. They probably could have used PolyForm Noncommercial instead of drafting their own license. https://polyformproject.org/licenses/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/
yreg 3y ago
>and you have the eternal source available vs open source debate. How has this stopped you from being source available for your business? :)
alexvoda 3y ago
> One could strike a balance between full OSS and legitimate needs of the producer to live off their creation. That is what the BSL is for. It is not an open source license but it is a source available licence that automatically transitions to an open source license after a predetermined amount of time.

by Sytten 3y ago

alexvoda 3y ago

They can use whatever licence they want. It's their software. They should only call it open source if they use an OSI-approved licence. Doing otherwise is openwashing and is frowned upon.

squigz 3y ago
I wonder if one reason particular groups of people have a hard time getting others to care about some issues is this tendency to make up words in order to make things sound more malicious than they are. Usually it just ends up sounding silly.
tcfhgj 3y ago
It would be open washing if you couldn't look at the source code, but you can.
- alexvoda 3y ago
  Open source does not mean you can look at the source code. Open source is defined by the OSI. If it is not using and OSI-approved license and claims to be open source it is open washing. Call it shared source or something else. This is a long since settled debate.
  - tcfhgj 3y ago
    Yes, it does. It's the opposite of closed source, and the meaning is implied by the word open. OSI isn't authoritative of the term.
    - alexvoda 3y ago
      This debate has been had many many times before and you are simply wrong. Your effort is malicious. Regardless of what other uses the word open has/had, "open source" was defined by OSI and they are authoritative over the term.
      - tcfhgj 3y ago
        Malicious is the attempt to restrict open source to floss and start a shitstorm about open source but not floss software, because it prevents transparency for software where floss isn't an option. If I define climate neutral as climate positive, climate neutral doesn't become climate positive nor do I get authority of the term climate neutral.
        alexvoda 3y ago
        And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. Thank you for denouncing yourself. Some terms were defined by a community and their use defended. Others were defined by a community, appropriated by others, distorted by others and subsequently abandoned by the original community. And yet others, were abandoned and then reclaimed by the original community. "Open Source" is in the first category, defined by OSI and defended by the FLOSS community. It is actively being defended, and fish much bigger than you have failed to topple the community.
        tcfhgj 3y ago
        "And yet that is absolutely the kind of bullshit you are pulling. " Nope it's what you and OSI try to do.
    - wokwokwok 3y ago
      I honestly don’t care if it is or not, but this has been discussed to death with regard to unreal and the consensus has been (from epic) to consistently refer to the source as “available on GitHub” not as “open source”, because that gives people an incorrect impression of the permissiveness of the license. Is this a hill you really want to die on? It doesn’t matter at all. The “can see code” = “must be open source” argument is stupid because it’s entirely opinion based. You cannot be right about it. It depends what you choose to define “open source” as. If you define it as some arbitrary thing (eg. I can read the source code) then of course you’re right. …but you can’t force other people to accept your arbitrary definition. You can only have an opinion about it. Same as anyone else. Is it really worth the argument? Source available is unambiguous, being explicit (“source can be download from GitHub”) I means you don’t have to waste your time on arguments like this for, what seems, truely trivial reasons.
  - Sytten 3y ago
    That is not a settled debate IMO, even Stallman said as much. Sure its not FOSS / FLOSS, but trying to push for a position where open source doesn't mean I can see the code is very much not agreed by everybody. EDIT: See https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
    - alexvoda 3y ago
      Just like Microsofts opinion didn't matter whenever they tried to dilute the meaning of open source, and just like MongoDB's and others opinion didn't matter, your opinion doesn't matter. Microsoft is far more convincing than you and they did not win this argument. Microsoft gave up and now only calls OSI-approved licenses open source. Open Source means OSI-approved. If you can read the source code but it's not OSI-approved, than it's source-available or shared source or something else.
  - vasco 3y ago
    A judge saying something once in the history of the world doesn't make it so that you can force language on others. Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source in every day speech, and unless they were preparing legal documents that's what they'd say. If you include normal people that don't work in software, then even more likely the usage is the one you're complaining about. You sound like this: https://stallman-copypasta.github.io/ https://stallman-copypasta.github.io/
    - 6510 3y ago
      > Most people that I've interacted that work in software refer to "source available" as open source Proprietary software and closed source refer to the same thing. Most people you've interacted are wrong. sorry...
      - vasco 3y ago
        Luckily I didn't mention either "closed source" or "proprietary software" in my comment. I mentioned that people colloquially use "open source" to refer to any code base that has source available to read. Maybe there's some hidden point you're trying to make by associating these concepts but it'd be easier if you said it plainly. Other than that I think you find that people in real life don't tend to be exact in their use of language all the time, and calling understandable imprecisions "wrong" tends to decrease the number of friends you get.
        alexvoda 3y ago
        People distort words to the point of meaningless unless the use of those words are defended. "Open Source" is a term that is actively being defended. The history of the term is very clear. The term was coined by Christine Peterson in a group session in 1998 with Todd Anderson, Larry Augustin, Jon Hall, Sam Ockman, Michael Tiemann, and Eric S. Raymond. Months later the OSI was created by the same people in order to manage that definition. There is nothing unclear here. "Open source" is defined by OSI and it has been defined by them from the very start. If communities let others distort words, those words loose their meaning. As a well known example, the word "woke" which has long been abandoned by the community that coined it. "Open source" is an actively defended term by the organisation that originally defined it and the community around them.

orlandohill 3y ago

The PolyForm Project has a suite of standardized, source available licenses for when using an OSI-approved open source license is inappropriate. They probably could have used PolyForm Noncommercial instead of drafting their own license. https://polyformproject.org/licenses/ https://polyformproject.org/licenses/

yreg 3y ago

>and you have the eternal source available vs open source debate. How has this stopped you from being source available for your business? :)

alexvoda 3y ago

> One could strike a balance between full OSS and legitimate needs of the producer to live off their creation. That is what the BSL is for. It is not an open source license but it is a source available licence that automatically transitions to an open source license after a predetermined amount of time.