3 ms·

> If your business model relies on no-one else using your software to compete with you, don't open-source the software. So you would rather have completely clo

by arp242 3y ago

> If your business model relies on no-one else using your software to compete with you, don't open-source the software. So you would rather have completely closed source instead of Open Source-but-for-one -detail? That's some puritanical ideology-driven nonsense. Be against this license if you wish, that fine and I'll happily debate anyone about it. But this is not a position I consider valid because obviously "more open" is better.

growse 3y ago
> So you would rather have completely closed source instead of Open Source-but-for-one -detail? Yes, because it's more honest about its intention. "but-for-one" is not open by definition, and trying to draw an equivocation is, ironically, free-riding off the virtue and benefits of actually open source projects.
- arp242 3y ago
  > it's more honest about its intention They're not dishonest. That you're unwilling or unable to accept anything other than a black/white worldview is not their problem. And "not open by definition" according to what definition of "open"? It's a vague and nebulous word that can mean any number of things. You don't get to single-handedly define this. Hell, people were using "Open" to mean all sorts of things long before 1998 as it was pretty much the buzzword of the late 80s/early 90s.
  - growse 3y ago
    Pretty much everyone I know in the industry uses the definition of "open" defined by the OSI, in relation to "open source": https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/ It's not a new term. > They're not dishonest. That you're unwilling or unable to accept anything other than a black/white worldview is not their problem. You can't be "a little bit open source". You are or you aren't. Some people might not accept that the definition is clear and well-formed, but for a lot of us it is. If you want to write proprietary software, great. People just get annoyed when it's dressed up as "a bit like open source".
    - arp242 3y ago
      > You can't be "a little bit open source". You are or you aren't. Of course you can. There are 10 bullet points on the OSD. If you meet 9 then it's 90% there. This is obvious better than 80%, which is better than 50%, which is better than 0%. > Pretty much everyone I know in the industry uses the definition of "open" defined by the OSI, in relation to "open source" OpenLinux, OpenDOS, OpenGL, OpenBSD, OpenStep, X/Open (later: Open Software Foundation, The Open Group), Common Open Software Environment, OpenVMS, etc. etc. Some of these are also "Open Source", some are not, and for some "Open Source" doesn't even make sense. But all of these usages of "Open" predate "Open Source", and I'm sure there are dozen more examples if I cared to look further. Oh, and here's Bill Joy using "Open Source Code" in 1985: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdoGPav3fc&t=826s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdoGPav3fc&t=826s The fact that HN has a discussion about "what Open source really means" demonstrates that NOT everyone has the same definition, otherwise these discussions wouldn't exist. To lay claim on not just the phrase "Open Source" but the very adverb "Open" is not just historically incorrect but also hugely unreasonable.
      - growse 3y ago
        > Of course you can. There are 10 bullet points on the OSD. If you meet 9 then it's 90% there. This is obvious better than 80%, which is better than 50%, which is better than 0%. Way may just have to agree to disagree then. I find it interesting that the only time anyone talks about "mostly" or "nearly" open source is in the context of a company looking to get the marketing benefit of association, and maybe some people to do some free contributions for them, without being bound by the social contract at the heart of the FOSS values. But maybe that's just me. > To lay claim on not just the phrase "Open Source" but the very adverb "Open" is not just historically incorrect but also hugely unreasonable. So this is my bad, I should have been clearer. When I said "'but-for-one' is not open by definition,", I meant in the context of FOSS, and specifically the definitions the OSI maintains. "But-for-one" violates criteria #5 & #6. And yes, the word "open" has existed for a long time, but that's sort of why the OSI standardized the term. This has been a solved problem for decades, and efforts to dilute what it means are only ever looked upon with extreme skepticism. If people think the OSI definition is bad or incomplete, then that's an argument worth having out in the open. But that's not what I see.
reedciccio 3y ago
Open Source is what allows developers to make their choices without having to ask for permissions. You can apt/pip/npm etc install and integrate pieces written by others in your own solution stack without having to call a lawyer. These non-open source licenses force you to stop and think, ask your lawyer before you build on top of them. What's the advantage of these "semi" almost but not all the way open licenses?
- reedciccio 3y ago
  I mentioned apt, pip etc because Sentry, Elastic and everything is built by integrating hundreds of packages. Nobody builds 100% of the code they ship to users and customers. These non-open source licenses make things like pip impossible to exist. This is why people and organizations familiar with Open Source react so vehemently against them. Re: GPL, the license is 30 years old, it (used to be) well understood and has an extensive FAQ. It has 2 main flaws: it's unappealing to SilVal VCs and ostracized by big tech. And it's promoted with one single-minded organization. Both things made it unpopular in the past 10 years and it became suddenly obscure. Re: shareware/shared source code owned by a single corporation. History shows that the possibility to fix bugs locally is only a theory. None of the projects using that license scheme still does or exists. Think Eucalyptus, read their conflict with NASA and how that led to OpenStack. At best, you will have to maintain your fork. The proper place to find ways leading to a sustainable business is not creating new licenses but iteration on business practices.
- arp242 3y ago
  These things aren't in apt (other than non-free repos), so that's not really a problem. I'm not sure about the pip and npm policy on these types of things, but Sentry isn't a library you would add, so it's not really a problem. But it's fine to keep Sentry out of pip as far as I'm concerned. > You can apt/pip/npm etc install and integrate pieces written by others in your own solution stack without having to call a lawyer. These non-open source licenses force you to stop and think, ask your lawyer before you build on top of them. Try doing that with AGPL, or even just the GPL, or CDDL, or any number of licenses. There's tons of OSD/Four Freedoms compliant licenses that come with conditions; you really do need to look at them and can't "just" do whatever and already need to think about it. And personally I really have trouble especially with the GPL licenses; try reading them and determining what exactly they mandate in various edge cases. We have tons of people clarifying all this (which may or may not be applicable to your situation/jurisdiction), but going on just the license is often very non-obvious. > What's the advantage of these "semi" almost but not all the way open licenses? I can fix bugs for starters. From a purely pragmatic point of view this kind of "I can fix my own problems" is >95% of the value for me. I can easily self-host (including some hacked-up version which addresses some specific needs). I can see what the code does if something is unclear. There's tons of advantages. The only limitation is "don't compete with us". There's probably a few edge-cases, but practically speaking almost everyone is unaffected and they can treat Sentry as "just MIT" (or Apache) for almost all practical intents and purposes. People talk as if there are all sorts of caveats and booby traps here, but there aren't.

by arp242 3y ago

growse 3y ago

> So you would rather have completely closed source instead of Open Source-but-for-one -detail? Yes, because it's more honest about its intention. "but-for-one" is not open by definition, and trying to draw an equivocation is, ironically, free-riding off the virtue and benefits of actually open source projects.

arp242 3y ago
> it's more honest about its intention They're not dishonest. That you're unwilling or unable to accept anything other than a black/white worldview is not their problem. And "not open by definition" according to what definition of "open"? It's a vague and nebulous word that can mean any number of things. You don't get to single-handedly define this. Hell, people were using "Open" to mean all sorts of things long before 1998 as it was pretty much the buzzword of the late 80s/early 90s.
- growse 3y ago
  Pretty much everyone I know in the industry uses the definition of "open" defined by the OSI, in relation to "open source": https://opensource.org/ https://opensource.org/ It's not a new term. > They're not dishonest. That you're unwilling or unable to accept anything other than a black/white worldview is not their problem. You can't be "a little bit open source". You are or you aren't. Some people might not accept that the definition is clear and well-formed, but for a lot of us it is. If you want to write proprietary software, great. People just get annoyed when it's dressed up as "a bit like open source".
  - arp242 3y ago
    > You can't be "a little bit open source". You are or you aren't. Of course you can. There are 10 bullet points on the OSD. If you meet 9 then it's 90% there. This is obvious better than 80%, which is better than 50%, which is better than 0%. > Pretty much everyone I know in the industry uses the definition of "open" defined by the OSI, in relation to "open source" OpenLinux, OpenDOS, OpenGL, OpenBSD, OpenStep, X/Open (later: Open Software Foundation, The Open Group), Common Open Software Environment, OpenVMS, etc. etc. Some of these are also "Open Source", some are not, and for some "Open Source" doesn't even make sense. But all of these usages of "Open" predate "Open Source", and I'm sure there are dozen more examples if I cared to look further. Oh, and here's Bill Joy using "Open Source Code" in 1985: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdoGPav3fc&t=826s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0DdoGPav3fc&t=826s The fact that HN has a discussion about "what Open source really means" demonstrates that NOT everyone has the same definition, otherwise these discussions wouldn't exist. To lay claim on not just the phrase "Open Source" but the very adverb "Open" is not just historically incorrect but also hugely unreasonable.
    - growse 3y ago
      > Of course you can. There are 10 bullet points on the OSD. If you meet 9 then it's 90% there. This is obvious better than 80%, which is better than 50%, which is better than 0%. Way may just have to agree to disagree then. I find it interesting that the only time anyone talks about "mostly" or "nearly" open source is in the context of a company looking to get the marketing benefit of association, and maybe some people to do some free contributions for them, without being bound by the social contract at the heart of the FOSS values. But maybe that's just me. > To lay claim on not just the phrase "Open Source" but the very adverb "Open" is not just historically incorrect but also hugely unreasonable. So this is my bad, I should have been clearer. When I said "'but-for-one' is not open by definition,", I meant in the context of FOSS, and specifically the definitions the OSI maintains. "But-for-one" violates criteria #5 & #6. And yes, the word "open" has existed for a long time, but that's sort of why the OSI standardized the term. This has been a solved problem for decades, and efforts to dilute what it means are only ever looked upon with extreme skepticism. If people think the OSI definition is bad or incomplete, then that's an argument worth having out in the open. But that's not what I see.

reedciccio 3y ago

Open Source is what allows developers to make their choices without having to ask for permissions. You can apt/pip/npm etc install and integrate pieces written by others in your own solution stack without having to call a lawyer. These non-open source licenses force you to stop and think, ask your lawyer before you build on top of them. What's the advantage of these "semi" almost but not all the way open licenses?

reedciccio 3y ago
I mentioned apt, pip etc because Sentry, Elastic and everything is built by integrating hundreds of packages. Nobody builds 100% of the code they ship to users and customers. These non-open source licenses make things like pip impossible to exist. This is why people and organizations familiar with Open Source react so vehemently against them. Re: GPL, the license is 30 years old, it (used to be) well understood and has an extensive FAQ. It has 2 main flaws: it's unappealing to SilVal VCs and ostracized by big tech. And it's promoted with one single-minded organization. Both things made it unpopular in the past 10 years and it became suddenly obscure. Re: shareware/shared source code owned by a single corporation. History shows that the possibility to fix bugs locally is only a theory. None of the projects using that license scheme still does or exists. Think Eucalyptus, read their conflict with NASA and how that led to OpenStack. At best, you will have to maintain your fork. The proper place to find ways leading to a sustainable business is not creating new licenses but iteration on business practices.
arp242 3y ago
These things aren't in apt (other than non-free repos), so that's not really a problem. I'm not sure about the pip and npm policy on these types of things, but Sentry isn't a library you would add, so it's not really a problem. But it's fine to keep Sentry out of pip as far as I'm concerned. > You can apt/pip/npm etc install and integrate pieces written by others in your own solution stack without having to call a lawyer. These non-open source licenses force you to stop and think, ask your lawyer before you build on top of them. Try doing that with AGPL, or even just the GPL, or CDDL, or any number of licenses. There's tons of OSD/Four Freedoms compliant licenses that come with conditions; you really do need to look at them and can't "just" do whatever and already need to think about it. And personally I really have trouble especially with the GPL licenses; try reading them and determining what exactly they mandate in various edge cases. We have tons of people clarifying all this (which may or may not be applicable to your situation/jurisdiction), but going on just the license is often very non-obvious. > What's the advantage of these "semi" almost but not all the way open licenses? I can fix bugs for starters. From a purely pragmatic point of view this kind of "I can fix my own problems" is >95% of the value for me. I can easily self-host (including some hacked-up version which addresses some specific needs). I can see what the code does if something is unclear. There's tons of advantages. The only limitation is "don't compete with us". There's probably a few edge-cases, but practically speaking almost everyone is unaffected and they can treat Sentry as "just MIT" (or Apache) for almost all practical intents and purposes. People talk as if there are all sorts of caveats and booby traps here, but there aren't.