4 ms·
The Open Source Initiative's Open Source Definition[0] doesn't permit discrimination against fields of endeavor. A license that discriminates between personal a
by 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 agoMy 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.