3 ms·

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the definition of "open source" that narrowly defines open source is going to be the thing that contributes to the reductio

by hungie 2y ago

I'm increasingly of the opinion that the definition of "open source" that narrowly defines open source is going to be the thing that contributes to the reduction of open source software. Open source communities are essentially anarchist syndicates, collectively working towards common good. Groups like Amazon coming in and taking their work and selling it, profiting to the tune of millions, and contributing nothing back will fundamentally alter the dynamics of the system. IMO, we need a definition of open source that permits me to limit users to those who aren't actively exploiting me. GPL flavors get close, but not sufficient. I believe, genuinely, in wellbeing for all, and that we should be working towards the common good of all. Open source is one such effort, but I'm tired of seeing people say, "it's only open source if the code is also permitted to be used against the common good and for the enrichment of a very select few already wealthy people."

KolmogorovComp 2y ago
> GPL flavors get close, but not sufficient What do you think makes it insufficient?
- hungie 2y ago
  Amazon has the market power, legal strength, and willingness to run at a loss indefinitely, as well as the regulatory capture and connections to ensure they cannot be fairly investigated. So if I want to ensure my software is used maximally, by the people who need or want it most, I need to ensure there isn't a "gravity distorting player" taking my project and white labeling it to push out all the other people. The AGPL gets closer, but still doesn't go far enough in defining "modifications to the software" or linking, IMO.
wavemode 2y ago
You can be as tired of it as you want, but tiredness doesn't change the meaning of words. What you probably want instead is "fair source": https://fair.io/ https://fair.io/ Like their names imply, open source is about source being open. Whereas fair source is about ensuring that code is used fairly. I would argue that people contributing to open source shouldn't be putting themselves in a position to be "actively exploited". If that's something you're worried about, then open source was probably the wrong choice. You should have sold the code for a profit instead, or established some revenue-limited source sharing (so that only indie devs can use it for free, like e.g. Unreal Engine). Or use a fair source license. Or a proprietary "source available" license.
- hungie 2y ago
  You speak as if there is a divinely written definition for the words "open source". There is not, there's a group of people who have said, "this is ok, this is not". I'm of the opinion that those people have made a mistake that will work against them, and they should consider revising their definition.
  - wavemode 2y ago
    But... there is a definitively written definition for those words. The phrase was invented to refer to a very specific thing. Changing the meaning of the word would accomplish nothing except force existing usages of the word to change. Like, if fair source licenses began to be referred to as "open source", then "open source" will have lost its original meaning. So now when stating that something is "open source", you will have to clarify whether you mean "original open source" or "expanded open source" (or something like that). This distinction will be very important to potential users, since it may or may not restrict their intended use case. It's no different from if we were to start referring to reptiles as mammals. Now when a biologist wants to refer to only organisms with mammary glands, they will need to use some other term, like "milk-making mammals". It does nothing but cause confusion. Not sure how else to explain this concept... like, I'm really just talking about semantics and pragmatism here. I don't disagree with you on ideological grounds, if that's what you're assuming.
    - hungie 2y ago
      The world changes, and we update definitions. There's nothing magical about a group of people in the 90s defining a thing one way because they disliked the politics of another definition. It's all just people making the best decisions they could. It's clear to me at least that there are existential threats presented by tech megacorps that aren't present awhile ago. Maybe it's time to rethink our definitions.

by hungie 2y ago

KolmogorovComp 2y ago

> GPL flavors get close, but not sufficient What do you think makes it insufficient?

hungie 2y ago
Amazon has the market power, legal strength, and willingness to run at a loss indefinitely, as well as the regulatory capture and connections to ensure they cannot be fairly investigated. So if I want to ensure my software is used maximally, by the people who need or want it most, I need to ensure there isn't a "gravity distorting player" taking my project and white labeling it to push out all the other people. The AGPL gets closer, but still doesn't go far enough in defining "modifications to the software" or linking, IMO.

wavemode 2y ago

You can be as tired of it as you want, but tiredness doesn't change the meaning of words. What you probably want instead is "fair source": https://fair.io/ https://fair.io/ Like their names imply, open source is about source being open. Whereas fair source is about ensuring that code is used fairly. I would argue that people contributing to open source shouldn't be putting themselves in a position to be "actively exploited". If that's something you're worried about, then open source was probably the wrong choice. You should have sold the code for a profit instead, or established some revenue-limited source sharing (so that only indie devs can use it for free, like e.g. Unreal Engine). Or use a fair source license. Or a proprietary "source available" license.

hungie 2y ago
You speak as if there is a divinely written definition for the words "open source". There is not, there's a group of people who have said, "this is ok, this is not". I'm of the opinion that those people have made a mistake that will work against them, and they should consider revising their definition.
- wavemode 2y ago
  But... there is a definitively written definition for those words. The phrase was invented to refer to a very specific thing. Changing the meaning of the word would accomplish nothing except force existing usages of the word to change. Like, if fair source licenses began to be referred to as "open source", then "open source" will have lost its original meaning. So now when stating that something is "open source", you will have to clarify whether you mean "original open source" or "expanded open source" (or something like that). This distinction will be very important to potential users, since it may or may not restrict their intended use case. It's no different from if we were to start referring to reptiles as mammals. Now when a biologist wants to refer to only organisms with mammary glands, they will need to use some other term, like "milk-making mammals". It does nothing but cause confusion. Not sure how else to explain this concept... like, I'm really just talking about semantics and pragmatism here. I don't disagree with you on ideological grounds, if that's what you're assuming.
  - hungie 2y ago
    The world changes, and we update definitions. There's nothing magical about a group of people in the 90s defining a thing one way because they disliked the politics of another definition. It's all just people making the best decisions they could. It's clear to me at least that there are existential threats presented by tech megacorps that aren't present awhile ago. Maybe it's time to rethink our definitions.