7 ms·

>> The SQLite3 business model is that SQLite3 is open source This is going to sound pedantic, but SQLite is not Open Source. It's Public Domain. The distinctio

>> The SQLite3 business model is that SQLite3 is open source This is going to sound pedantic, but SQLite is not Open Source. It's Public Domain. The distinction is subtle, but it is important.

wmf 2y ago
Public domain is a form of open source.
- thih9 2y ago
  No. At least according to the Open Source Initiative, public domain is not open source: https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
  - quotemstr 2y ago
    Any definition of open source that doesn't include the public domain is out of touch with how real people use the words "open source" and is therefore useless. You can make up any definition you want, but if you insist on calling elephants "bananas", I'm not going to take you seriously
    - CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
      You should read the text, it's not about calling elephants bananas but real issues with software in the public domain
      - quotemstr 2y ago
        I read the text: it's license hermenuetics at best and FUD at worst. Has there been a single instance in recorded history of the author of a public domain work trying to enforce usage, modification, or distribution permissions. Sure, you can point to theoretical variation in the precise semantics of the public domain in various jurisdictions, but it feels like a bar exam puzzle, not a real world practical concern. In the real world, you can safely do whatever you want with public domain software. It counts as free software. That half the planet nowadays uses SQLite and treats it as free software is testament to this reality. Obscure license pedanticism just doesn't inform the choices of anyone actually building.
        bruce511 2y ago
        Public Domain is not Free Software (in the FSF sense) because it has none of the encumbrances of a Free Software license. In other words you don't use PD software "like Free Software". You can use it in many places where Free Software would not be permissible. In terms of -developer- freedom, public domain is top of the pile, the Open Source, then Free Software. In terms of -user- freedoms Free Software is top of the pile, OSS in the middle, public domain is similar to commercial software.
        CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
        Open source and Free software have different philosophies, but in practice they are essentially the same. You are thinking about copyleft vs non-copyleft. BSD, MIT, CC0 are all Free Software licenses but not copyleft.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        You’re making the common mistake of confusing the copyleft vs. permissive distinction with the free software vs. open source distinction. GPL is copyleft. MIT, BSD etc. are permissive. But all of those are both free software and open source, which are essentially synonyms. The reason so many people get confused by this is that some of the people who prefer copyleft licenses (notably the FSF) also tend to prefer the term “free software”, for philosophical reasons.
        erik_seaberg 2y ago
        It might seem really unlikely any acquirer would ever sue, but if your big company has compliance auditors they will need to see something in black and white.
        quotemstr 2y ago
        Lots of big companies somehow manage to use SQLite. I've never heard of a company prohibiting it on license grounds.
    - bruce511 2y ago
      The problem with your analogy is that open source has a definition. As does public domain. As do elephants and bananas. In your analogy we're not the ones calling elephants bananas, you are. We want to keep calling one bananas and the other elephants. You are suggesting that since elephants are similar to bananas you can simply use either word. Legally, Open Source and Public Domain are -very- different animals. Open Source comes eith a copyright, and a license (which has requirements), public domain does not. Of course public domain and open source are both "shipped as source code". Then again so is a fair bit of proprietary software. That doesn't make it open source either.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - Intermernet 2y ago
      How people use the term "fair use" is out of touch with the legal definition. That doesn't change the legal definition, it means people use the term incorrectly.
      - IshKebab 2y ago
        It means the common use of "fair use" is different to the legal definition. It doesn't mean either are wrong. It isn't wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable. In common use it is. Similarly the common use of "open source" is different to the OSI's preferred definition. Note that the OSI's preferred definition is not a legal definition. It's just what they prefer.
    - thih9 2y ago
      The linked article mentions public domain. Please note that public domain laws vary depending on the country. What you call a banana might mean something different elsewhere.
  - otterley 2y ago
    It is absolutely true that a work can be in the public domain and not have source available (or even contributable). But that doesn't really matter to most people. The question for most people is not whether something is open source, but whether they can copy and make use of a work without being held liable for copyright infringement. SQLite happens to be both public domain and open-source to an extent (i.e., source available). Conversely, open source doesn't necessarily mean "free to use without encumbrance." There are many open-source licenses that forbid certain uses (e.g. Business Source License). On the other hand, a work in the public domain is free to be used by all without restriction. A better analysis of open source vs. public domain would be in the form of a square, where one dimension would be the right to use the work, and the other dimension would be the ability to obtain and contribute source code.
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      No one's saying public domain isn't useful. You're replying to a comment that's specifically and solely combatting the idea that public domain means open source.
    - promano 2y ago
      The Business Source License is not an open source license. Open source does mean "free to use without encumbrance" - see points 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition at https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
      - odo1242 2y ago
        Yea - software released under the BSL is “source available”, not open source.
      - otterley 2y ago
        Approximately zero people who make real business decisions care what the OSI considers a "real open-source license" to be. They care what the text of the license says. Also, many licenses, such as the GPL (one of the very first "open source" licenses), have certain encumbrances; you cannot redistribute GPL-licensed software without either including its source code or making it readily available.
  - odo1242 2y ago
    Technically true, though this distinction only matters in a few countries.
- fluidcruft 2y ago
  > public domain software may be free software but is not certain to be. Open Source relies on copyright and contract law (which are somewhat standardized or at least understood due to their importance in commerce). Public domain relies on other laws that can vary significantly. https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
- cryptonector 2y ago
  Yes, public domain is a form of open source, but not of Open Source (for reasons that IMO are silly).
thih9 2y ago
Details if anyone is interested: https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- IshKebab 2y ago
  They don't own the words "open source" no matter how much they might like to. > “Open Source” describes a subset of free software that is made available under a copyright license approved by the Open Source Initiative as conforming with the Open Source Definition. No it doesn't. It describes software whose source is "open" which is generally understood to mean that you can read, modify and reuse the code for free. Public domain definitely fits that. The "public domain doesn't exist in some countries" arguments are spurious as far as I can tell.
wongarsu 2y ago
It's a difference only insofar that in many jurisdictions their claim that it's public domain has no legal value. If it was truly public domain (e.g. if the authors were long dead) it would be open source. But far from all places allow you to arbitrarily put things in the public domain. I'm a bit puzzled why SQLite doesn't solve this trivial issue by claiming the code is CC0-licensed. CC0 is made just for that: a very wordy way to make it as close to public domain as possible in each jurisdiction. On the other hand, hobbyists won't care. As long as you trust them in their intention to have it open source they won't sue you for infringement either. And if as a company you need more assurance than "it's public domain" they are so nice to sell you a fancy legally-satisfying piece of paper for an undisclosed price. It's a subtle but clever way to get income from users with too much money
- Aloisius 2y ago
  SQLite didn't just say, "it's public domain." They explicitly state, "Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means." One can buy a "license" if one's company is run by idle lawyers: https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license
  - callingbull 2y ago
    > They explicitly state, "Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means." It's not clear this is a license grant rather than legal advice (which would be correct legal advice if the code were public domain, but it is not).
- cy7 2y ago
  > sell you a fancy legally-satisfying piece of paper for an undisclosed price It's $6,000 https://sqlite.org/prosupport.html https://sqlite.org/prosupport.html
jasode 2y ago
>This is going to sound pedantic, but SQLite is not Open Source. It's Public Domain. Well, there are 2 different modes of communication: (1) official language-lawyer pedantic communication: "open source" != "public domain" (2) conversational casual chitchat : "open source" includes "public domain" Yes, the SQLite home page does say "public domain". However, when people interview SQLite create, Richard Hipp, he himself calls it "open source". He also doesn't correct others when they also call it "open source". Excerpt of R Hipp: So, I thought, well, why can't I have a database that just reads directly off the disc? And I looked around and there were none available. I thought, “oh, I'll just write my own, how hard can that be?” Well, it turns out to be harder than you might think at first, but I didn't know that at the time. But we got it out there and I just put it out as open source. And before long, I started getting these phone calls from the big tech companies of the day, like Motorola and AOL, and, “Hey, can you support this?”, and “Sure!” And it's like, wow, you can make money by supporting open source software? https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/1906/pdfs/06_Profiles_Hipp.pdf https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/1906/pdfs...
- znpy 2y ago
  > (2) conversational casual chitchat : "open source" includes "public domain" it's wrong though. like, can't be more wrong than that. you can't do whatever you want with open source software, the license tells what you can and cannot do. with public domain software you can do most things.
  - w4 2y ago
    Open source means just that: that the source is open. The OSI and co. re-defining the term to suit their ideological preferences doesn’t really change that. SQLite is open source, even if it’s not Open Source. Edit: FSF should have been OSI, I think. Fixed.
    - sowbug 2y ago
      I don't understand why OSI didn't pick an actually trademarkable term and license its use to projects that meet its ideals of open-sourceness. OSI knows it has no right to redefine common language and police its usage, any more than a grammar pedant has the right to levy fines against those of us who split infinitives. (To be fair to OSI, I've never seen any of their representatives do this. But the internet vigilante squad they've spawned feels quite empowered to let us know we've broken the rules.)
cryptonector 2y ago
open source != Open Source. If I had meant the latter I would have written Open Source, but I wrote open source because I meant the former. How's that for being pedantic?
- froh 2y ago
  not helpful. capitalization is not bearing meaning in these contexts. open source means OSI compliant, broadly speaking, and licensed as such. in contrast, public domain doesn't exist in some jurisdictions, which is why sqlite as a company had to create an option to provide an official license. which they found so annoying that they charged a sweet fee to send a signed printed letter...
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
callingbull 2y ago
> It's Public Domain. Is it though? The website does say "All of the code and documentation in SQLite has been dedicated to the public domain by the authors" but copyright law has no exception for "dedications" to the public domain. At best the authors are estopped from bringing suit but even that is unclear.
- Rendello 2y ago
  Companies can buy licences if they're uncomfortable with the Public Domain dedication: [quote] Licenses are available to satisfy the following needs: * You want indemnity against claims of copyright infringement. * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain. * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of authors to dedicate their work to the public domain. * You want to hold a tangible legal document as evidence that you have the legal right to use and distribute SQLite. * Your legal department tells you that you have to purchase a license. [end quote] https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license
  - callingbull 2y ago
    They could have CC0 licensed the code or they could have said they would not enforce their copyright. They did neither. SQLite is closed source. The "dedication" (which has no legal effect, what does it even mean?) encourages widespread adoption and big players are spooked into paying for a license (or "warranty of title"). That's quite a strategy.

>> The SQLite3 business model is that SQLite3 is open source This is going to sound pedantic, but SQLite is not Open Source. It's Public Domain. The distinction is subtle, but it is important.

wmf 2y ago

Public domain is a form of open source.

thih9 2y ago
No. At least according to the Open Source Initiative, public domain is not open source: https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
- quotemstr 2y ago
  Any definition of open source that doesn't include the public domain is out of touch with how real people use the words "open source" and is therefore useless. You can make up any definition you want, but if you insist on calling elephants "bananas", I'm not going to take you seriously
  - CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
    You should read the text, it's not about calling elephants bananas but real issues with software in the public domain
    - quotemstr 2y ago
      I read the text: it's license hermenuetics at best and FUD at worst. Has there been a single instance in recorded history of the author of a public domain work trying to enforce usage, modification, or distribution permissions. Sure, you can point to theoretical variation in the precise semantics of the public domain in various jurisdictions, but it feels like a bar exam puzzle, not a real world practical concern. In the real world, you can safely do whatever you want with public domain software. It counts as free software. That half the planet nowadays uses SQLite and treats it as free software is testament to this reality. Obscure license pedanticism just doesn't inform the choices of anyone actually building.
      - bruce511 2y ago
        Public Domain is not Free Software (in the FSF sense) because it has none of the encumbrances of a Free Software license. In other words you don't use PD software "like Free Software". You can use it in many places where Free Software would not be permissible. In terms of -developer- freedom, public domain is top of the pile, the Open Source, then Free Software. In terms of -user- freedoms Free Software is top of the pile, OSS in the middle, public domain is similar to commercial software.
        CorrectHorseBat 2y ago
        Open source and Free software have different philosophies, but in practice they are essentially the same. You are thinking about copyleft vs non-copyleft. BSD, MIT, CC0 are all Free Software licenses but not copyleft.
        School-Cotton 2y ago
        You’re making the common mistake of confusing the copyleft vs. permissive distinction with the free software vs. open source distinction. GPL is copyleft. MIT, BSD etc. are permissive. But all of those are both free software and open source, which are essentially synonyms. The reason so many people get confused by this is that some of the people who prefer copyleft licenses (notably the FSF) also tend to prefer the term “free software”, for philosophical reasons.
      - erik_seaberg 2y ago
        It might seem really unlikely any acquirer would ever sue, but if your big company has compliance auditors they will need to see something in black and white.
        quotemstr 2y ago
        Lots of big companies somehow manage to use SQLite. I've never heard of a company prohibiting it on license grounds.
  - bruce511 2y ago
    The problem with your analogy is that open source has a definition. As does public domain. As do elephants and bananas. In your analogy we're not the ones calling elephants bananas, you are. We want to keep calling one bananas and the other elephants. You are suggesting that since elephants are similar to bananas you can simply use either word. Legally, Open Source and Public Domain are -very- different animals. Open Source comes eith a copyright, and a license (which has requirements), public domain does not. Of course public domain and open source are both "shipped as source code". Then again so is a fair bit of proprietary software. That doesn't make it open source either.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - Intermernet 2y ago
    How people use the term "fair use" is out of touch with the legal definition. That doesn't change the legal definition, it means people use the term incorrectly.
    - IshKebab 2y ago
      It means the common use of "fair use" is different to the legal definition. It doesn't mean either are wrong. It isn't wrong to say a tomato is a vegetable. In common use it is. Similarly the common use of "open source" is different to the OSI's preferred definition. Note that the OSI's preferred definition is not a legal definition. It's just what they prefer.
  - thih9 2y ago
    The linked article mentions public domain. Please note that public domain laws vary depending on the country. What you call a banana might mean something different elsewhere.
- otterley 2y ago
  It is absolutely true that a work can be in the public domain and not have source available (or even contributable). But that doesn't really matter to most people. The question for most people is not whether something is open source, but whether they can copy and make use of a work without being held liable for copyright infringement. SQLite happens to be both public domain and open-source to an extent (i.e., source available). Conversely, open source doesn't necessarily mean "free to use without encumbrance." There are many open-source licenses that forbid certain uses (e.g. Business Source License). On the other hand, a work in the public domain is free to be used by all without restriction. A better analysis of open source vs. public domain would be in the form of a square, where one dimension would be the right to use the work, and the other dimension would be the ability to obtain and contribute source code.
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    No one's saying public domain isn't useful. You're replying to a comment that's specifically and solely combatting the idea that public domain means open source.
  - promano 2y ago
    The Business Source License is not an open source license. Open source does mean "free to use without encumbrance" - see points 5 and 6 of the Open Source Definition at https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd
    - odo1242 2y ago
      Yea - software released under the BSL is “source available”, not open source.
    - otterley 2y ago
      Approximately zero people who make real business decisions care what the OSI considers a "real open-source license" to be. They care what the text of the license says. Also, many licenses, such as the GPL (one of the very first "open source" licenses), have certain encumbrances; you cannot redistribute GPL-licensed software without either including its source code or making it readily available.
- odo1242 2y ago
  Technically true, though this distinction only matters in a few countries.
fluidcruft 2y ago
> public domain software may be free software but is not certain to be. Open Source relies on copyright and contract law (which are somewhat standardized or at least understood due to their importance in commerce). Public domain relies on other laws that can vary significantly. https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source
cryptonector 2y ago
Yes, public domain is a form of open source, but not of Open Source (for reasons that IMO are silly).

thih9 2y ago

Details if anyone is interested: https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
IshKebab 2y ago
They don't own the words "open source" no matter how much they might like to. > “Open Source” describes a subset of free software that is made available under a copyright license approved by the Open Source Initiative as conforming with the Open Source Definition. No it doesn't. It describes software whose source is "open" which is generally understood to mean that you can read, modify and reuse the code for free. Public domain definitely fits that. The "public domain doesn't exist in some countries" arguments are spurious as far as I can tell.

wongarsu 2y ago

It's a difference only insofar that in many jurisdictions their claim that it's public domain has no legal value. If it was truly public domain (e.g. if the authors were long dead) it would be open source. But far from all places allow you to arbitrarily put things in the public domain. I'm a bit puzzled why SQLite doesn't solve this trivial issue by claiming the code is CC0-licensed. CC0 is made just for that: a very wordy way to make it as close to public domain as possible in each jurisdiction. On the other hand, hobbyists won't care. As long as you trust them in their intention to have it open source they won't sue you for infringement either. And if as a company you need more assurance than "it's public domain" they are so nice to sell you a fancy legally-satisfying piece of paper for an undisclosed price. It's a subtle but clever way to get income from users with too much money

Aloisius 2y ago
SQLite didn't just say, "it's public domain." They explicitly state, "Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means." One can buy a "license" if one's company is run by idle lawyers: https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license
- callingbull 2y ago
  > They explicitly state, "Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means." It's not clear this is a license grant rather than legal advice (which would be correct legal advice if the code were public domain, but it is not).
cy7 2y ago
> sell you a fancy legally-satisfying piece of paper for an undisclosed price It's $6,000 https://sqlite.org/prosupport.html https://sqlite.org/prosupport.html

jasode 2y ago

>This is going to sound pedantic, but SQLite is not Open Source. It's Public Domain. Well, there are 2 different modes of communication: (1) official language-lawyer pedantic communication: "open source" != "public domain" (2) conversational casual chitchat : "open source" includes "public domain" Yes, the SQLite home page does say "public domain". However, when people interview SQLite create, Richard Hipp, he himself calls it "open source". He also doesn't correct others when they also call it "open source". Excerpt of R Hipp: So, I thought, well, why can't I have a database that just reads directly off the disc? And I looked around and there were none available. I thought, “oh, I'll just write my own, how hard can that be?” Well, it turns out to be harder than you might think at first, but I didn't know that at the time. But we got it out there and I just put it out as open source. And before long, I started getting these phone calls from the big tech companies of the day, like Motorola and AOL, and, “Hey, can you support this?”, and “Sure!” And it's like, wow, you can make money by supporting open source software? https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/1906/pdfs/06_Profiles_Hipp.pdf https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/1906/pdfs...

znpy 2y ago
> (2) conversational casual chitchat : "open source" includes "public domain" it's wrong though. like, can't be more wrong than that. you can't do whatever you want with open source software, the license tells what you can and cannot do. with public domain software you can do most things.
- w4 2y ago
  Open source means just that: that the source is open. The OSI and co. re-defining the term to suit their ideological preferences doesn’t really change that. SQLite is open source, even if it’s not Open Source. Edit: FSF should have been OSI, I think. Fixed.
  - sowbug 2y ago
    I don't understand why OSI didn't pick an actually trademarkable term and license its use to projects that meet its ideals of open-sourceness. OSI knows it has no right to redefine common language and police its usage, any more than a grammar pedant has the right to levy fines against those of us who split infinitives. (To be fair to OSI, I've never seen any of their representatives do this. But the internet vigilante squad they've spawned feels quite empowered to let us know we've broken the rules.)

cryptonector 2y ago

open source != Open Source. If I had meant the latter I would have written Open Source, but I wrote open source because I meant the former. How's that for being pedantic?

froh 2y ago
not helpful. capitalization is not bearing meaning in these contexts. open source means OSI compliant, broadly speaking, and licensed as such. in contrast, public domain doesn't exist in some jurisdictions, which is why sqlite as a company had to create an option to provide an official license. which they found so annoying that they charged a sweet fee to send a signed printed letter...
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]

callingbull 2y ago

> It's Public Domain. Is it though? The website does say "All of the code and documentation in SQLite has been dedicated to the public domain by the authors" but copyright law has no exception for "dedications" to the public domain. At best the authors are estopped from bringing suit but even that is unclear.

Rendello 2y ago
Companies can buy licences if they're uncomfortable with the Public Domain dedication: [quote] Licenses are available to satisfy the following needs: * You want indemnity against claims of copyright infringement. * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain. * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of authors to dedicate their work to the public domain. * You want to hold a tangible legal document as evidence that you have the legal right to use and distribute SQLite. * Your legal department tells you that you have to purchase a license. [end quote] https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license
- callingbull 2y ago
  They could have CC0 licensed the code or they could have said they would not enforce their copyright. They did neither. SQLite is closed source. The "dedication" (which has no legal effect, what does it even mean?) encourages widespread adoption and big players are spooked into paying for a license (or "warranty of title"). That's quite a strategy.