5 ms·
> Skiff was presented as open-source, the back-end never was so it was not possible to self-host it. In addition, the type of license used (CC-BY-NC-SA) is mean
by armchairhacker 3y ago
> Skiff was presented as open-source, the back-end never was so it was not possible to self-host it. In addition, the type of license used (CC-BY-NC-SA) is meant for artworks and more geared towards showing the code than making the service operable by others.
That’s not open-source, it’s open core. Calling it open-source is a straight-up lie.
True open-source is useful even if a company gets acquired or changes their business model, because 1) the old version stays open-source so you never lose access, and 2) it can be forked and remain updated to compete with the now-proprietary version. Like when Terraform got forked into OpenTofu.
1) should be enough on its own to make nobody care if the company changes the license, but we live in a world where people expect all types of software to have continuous improvements. Still, 2) means there’s a group can ensure the open fork has everything the closed original does, by putting in as much effort as the company. In practice the forks often fall behind and sometimes they die, but it’s for the same reason the companies move away from open-source: it’s harder to make progress without funding, and it’s harder to get funding with open-source.
EDIT: I also get that the term “open-source” is diluted. But my understanding is that it means all of the source (i.e. code) is open (i.e. public). Otherwise, why even call it open-source in the first place? Non-code data like assets, training data, and keys can be private (provided the key isn’t encrypting any code), which lets people sell open-source products; a server can use a key to ensure that clients purchased the product (and a checksum to establish that the client’s source hasn’t been modified), but the server’s code should be open-source (so people can run modified versions locally but must buy the official game to play on the official servers).
I suppose there’s some loophole a group can use to create something under this definition of “open-source” and revoke access to prior versions later (at a minimum they can exclude you from the official servers). But at least I don’t know any occurrence of this ever happening, and it’s certainly a lot harder
and less likely than revoking access to “open core” (which is just, not publicizing the majority of your code, so that even calling it “open” is debatable).
- RobotToaster 3y agoI'm not sure it could even be called open core, that usually implies at least something is open source, but CC-NC violates the open source definition. (Also technically no CC licence is an open source licence, since they don't require works to release the source code, because they aren't intended for source code)
- yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago> Also technically no CC licence is an open source licence, since they don't require works to release the source code, because they aren't intended for source code I think you're confusing open source with copyleft; ex. BSD style licenses are open source while still allowing proprietary derivatives.
- matrss 3y ago> (Also technically no CC licence is an open source licence, since they don't require works to release the source code, because they aren't intended for source code) The MIT and BSD licenses also do not necessarily require the release of source code. It is just that if you license code under those terms and pass it to someone else, then they receive the rights to do a lot of things with the code, including releasing it. I don't think that is much different with the CC licenses (the non-commercial variant is definitely not open source though).
- RobotToaster 3y agoMy point is CC licenses don't even require the original author to release the source code, you can technically release software using that license as binaries. So as a license it can be used for both open and closed source software. It would be rather pointless, other than giving people the right to binary patch and redistribute the file. I'm mostly just splitting hairs because seeing CC licenses used for code annoys me.
- wrs 3y agoThe MIT license doesn’t mention source code, just “Software”. I don’t see any reason you couldn’t release a binary under MIT and not release the source code. It seems basically equivalent to CC-BY.
- matrss 3y ago> My point is CC licenses don't even require the original author to release the source code, you can technically release software using that license as binaries. The same applies to MIT and BSD licenses. That was my point. > It would be rather pointless Agreed, but nothing in the license text prohibits it in any way. Even if it did, as the sole author of some code you are not bound by whatever license you pick, even if it was a copyleft license that would require other people to share their modifications.
- dabeeeenster 3y ago> That’s not open-source, it’s open core. I'd argue its not even open core. Normally open core means a useful product that you can run/host end to end in an open manner, but where some features (normally enterprise features) are closed-source. Not being able to run the back end at all?! I don't even know what I'd call that...
- mortallywounded 3y agoOpen client? It does have a place. For example, a password manager browser extension should be open source regardless if the server/platform is. It's nice to be able to audit something that is running on every website you ever visit.
- plagiarist 3y agoThe NC license is not open source in the way people mean open source. None of it was open source.
- Gormo 3y ago> Not being able to run the back end at all?! I don't even know what I'd call that... I'd call it proprietary software.
- woah 3y agoI'm guessing the point was to allow people to verify that the e2e encryption was real