3 ms·

> Wouldn't any OSS license that requires this, then by definition not be open source? The difference between FOSS and OSS. > In other words this plan falls in

by jorvi 3y ago

> Wouldn't any OSS license that requires this, then by definition not be open source? The difference between FOSS and OSS. > In other words this plan falls into the category of "sure, that sounds great, but there is simply no path for this to become reality." And yet despite the extreme market capture of Meta we now have things like ActivityPub and soon WhatsApp will have support for 3rd party messaging services. Dare to dream. Things can improve. Edit: I guess HN prefers to stay stuck in quagmire rather than dream of improvements. Sad state of affairs.

CorrectHorseBat 3y ago
>The difference between FOSS and OSS. It doesn't fit either of the definitions
red_admiral 3y ago
The difference between free as in freedom, and free as in beer.
EvanAnderson 3y ago
The Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition[0] doesn't permit discrimination against fields of endeavor. A license that discriminates between personal and business use is neither Open Source nor Free. The dichotomy between Free and Open Source software centers around political ideas around protecting user freedom. [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Edit: re: your "hopes and dreams" edit - I think it's safe to say reasonable people have no problem with proprietary source-available licenses (like the BSL, for example). Just don't call those types of licenses "open source". They aren't. Those who attempt to free-ride on the goodwill Free and Open Source has amassed by using improper terminology to describe proprietary source-available licenses are what create frustration.
- jorvi 3y ago
  My mistake! Thanks for making me aware of the term source-available and the BSL. > Just don't call those types of licenses "open source". They aren't. Those who attempt to free-ride on the goodwill.. Well, to be honest, organisations can't lay claim to general language concepts. Many many people use "open source" to just mean "source openly accesible", and use "permissive source" for stuff licensed with GPL/BSD/Apache etc.
  - bruce511 3y ago
    "Open Source" is not a general language construct, its a defined term with a defined meaning. The fact that many people use the phrase incorrectly is exactly the problem that needs correcting. Licenses gave very real legal consequences, and calling yourself Open Source when you're not is not a good way to create confidence with potential customers.
bruce511 3y ago
I didn't downvote , but I presume those were around your misunderstanding of FOSS and OSS. >> Edit: I guess HN prefers to stay stuck in quagmire rather than dream of improvements. Sad state of affairs. Dreaming in itself doesn't lead to improvement. There's nothing wrong with dreaming per se, but it won't solve the problem raised by the parent article. There are other course lots of ways to "improve" the situation. Microsoft has a model that generates mountains of documentation, and they find a way to pay for it. That model though (commercial software generating sales revenue) is not compatible with OSS licenses. I'm guessing we're looking for an "improvement" here that doesn't involve changing away from OSS licenses. Even if that wasn't a deal-breaker though, fixing problems with new taxes is seldom a viable solution in the real world. Taxes are seldom so specific - occasionally things collected here are used over there but mostly it's a giant pot. So your suggestion would be better described as "create a govt fund, seed it with billions a year and issue grants from that." Certainly the money would have to come from somewhere, which means either raising some general tax, of cutting spending elsewhere. In case you haven't noticed there is little appetite in politics to increase spending. One party regularly lowers taxes and increases the deficit. The other wants to expand social services and increase the deficit. All sides see an increasing deficit as bad. (Go square that circle) Interestingly European Govts -are- spending on OSS, and issue grants. But there's little appetite got this in the US. So, by all means dream. By all means throw out ideas. But accept that most ideas are bad. This one is bad I multiple directions. That's no big deal, it'll help inform your next idea, which may be good.

by jorvi 3y ago

CorrectHorseBat 3y ago

>The difference between FOSS and OSS. It doesn't fit either of the definitions

red_admiral 3y ago

The difference between free as in freedom, and free as in beer.

EvanAnderson 3y ago

The Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition[0] doesn't permit discrimination against fields of endeavor. A license that discriminates between personal and business use is neither Open Source nor Free. The dichotomy between Free and Open Source software centers around political ideas around protecting user freedom. [0] https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/ Edit: re: your "hopes and dreams" edit - I think it's safe to say reasonable people have no problem with proprietary source-available licenses (like the BSL, for example). Just don't call those types of licenses "open source". They aren't. Those who attempt to free-ride on the goodwill Free and Open Source has amassed by using improper terminology to describe proprietary source-available licenses are what create frustration.

jorvi 3y ago
My mistake! Thanks for making me aware of the term source-available and the BSL. > Just don't call those types of licenses "open source". They aren't. Those who attempt to free-ride on the goodwill.. Well, to be honest, organisations can't lay claim to general language concepts. Many many people use "open source" to just mean "source openly accesible", and use "permissive source" for stuff licensed with GPL/BSD/Apache etc.
- bruce511 3y ago
  "Open Source" is not a general language construct, its a defined term with a defined meaning. The fact that many people use the phrase incorrectly is exactly the problem that needs correcting. Licenses gave very real legal consequences, and calling yourself Open Source when you're not is not a good way to create confidence with potential customers.

bruce511 3y ago

I didn't downvote , but I presume those were around your misunderstanding of FOSS and OSS. >> Edit: I guess HN prefers to stay stuck in quagmire rather than dream of improvements. Sad state of affairs. Dreaming in itself doesn't lead to improvement. There's nothing wrong with dreaming per se, but it won't solve the problem raised by the parent article. There are other course lots of ways to "improve" the situation. Microsoft has a model that generates mountains of documentation, and they find a way to pay for it. That model though (commercial software generating sales revenue) is not compatible with OSS licenses. I'm guessing we're looking for an "improvement" here that doesn't involve changing away from OSS licenses. Even if that wasn't a deal-breaker though, fixing problems with new taxes is seldom a viable solution in the real world. Taxes are seldom so specific - occasionally things collected here are used over there but mostly it's a giant pot. So your suggestion would be better described as "create a govt fund, seed it with billions a year and issue grants from that." Certainly the money would have to come from somewhere, which means either raising some general tax, of cutting spending elsewhere. In case you haven't noticed there is little appetite in politics to increase spending. One party regularly lowers taxes and increases the deficit. The other wants to expand social services and increase the deficit. All sides see an increasing deficit as bad. (Go square that circle) Interestingly European Govts -are- spending on OSS, and issue grants. But there's little appetite got this in the US. So, by all means dream. By all means throw out ideas. But accept that most ideas are bad. This one is bad I multiple directions. That's no big deal, it'll help inform your next idea, which may be good.