3 ms·

Open source was never about doing stuff for free - at least not originally. It’s about the definition of ownership. What does it mean to own a program? When y

Open source was never about doing stuff for free - at least not originally. It’s about the definition of ownership. What does it mean to own a program? When you distribute the program, you must also distribute the code for it. That’s open source.

otterley 14d ago
It's not about the definition of ownership, either. The author of FOSS software retains ownership, unless they explicitly convey it to someone else. It's about how software is licensed--the terms and conditions under which someone can make a copy. That's why it's called the GNU Public License, or the MIT License, and why there's a LICENSE file. The mere act of copying does not convey ownership, and never has.
- GrinningFool 14d ago
  I think the license was the best tool available for the ideology around ownership.
- thayne 14d ago
  Yes and no. It isn't about ownership of the project as a whole, but it is about ownership of your copy of the software.
  - otterley 14d ago
    I'm an attorney who specialized in copyright law, and I don't even know what you're trying to say.
    - necovek 14d ago
      You are likely too much in it to see the other side. Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant: it's basically a no-copyright world it aims for, but then structured into the copyright world of licensing to use and distribute. It is nothing but a workaround, and copyleft uses it to make the default an even stronger case for reuse (by including sources). In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster).
      - otterley 14d ago
        > Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant The creators of the GPL never said this. That's an interpretation that Richard Stallman would probably disagree with if you asked him. > In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster). I'm aware of all this. It's also irrelevant, because we live in a world with copyright, and despite the fever dreams of some, that's not changing any time soon. Perhaps you should allow the person I was responding to answer for him/herself.
        necovek 14d ago
        I apologize for intruding on your personal conversation on a public forum. What the RMS's opinion on copyright in software was when he kicked off "free software" is pretty obvious from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html — you may certainly have a different interpretation of "you should be able to give a copy to your friend" than I do.
      - MattPalmer1086 14d ago
        No, it isn't an attempt to make copyright irrelevant. Almost all OSS licenses impose some conditions - even if it is only attribution. OSS licenses are fully part of the copyright system and could not exist without it. Maybe you are thinking of "public domain".
        necovek 14d ago
        I am talking of how "copyleft" came to be. See the motivation at eg. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html
        MattPalmer1086 14d ago
        It is interesting that a philosophy opposed to ownership and restriction of control has pretty much the most controlling terms of any OSS license - to the extent it is usually banned in any commercial software development. I do understand the copy left rationale - to ensure the freedom to modify and for the community to benefit from those modifications, it is necessary to use the machinery of control!
jaredklewis 14d ago
Ok, but this kind of seems like semantic quibbling. At least since I've been programming (early 2000s), open source has been almost entirely free as in beer. Whatever the origins of the movement, as it actually exists today and has for a long time, both definitions of free are integral parts of the concept. If anyone ever uses the term "open source" in the widely understood, colloquial sense, a dozen eager HN commenters always jump in to explain the exact bounds of the various terms in their own idiolect. I can occasionally enjoy a good debate about semantics, except on HN it's basically always orthogonal to whatever issue is actually being discussed. I've been reading on HN about how the term has been misappropriated for 10 years and I'm very ready to move on. The parent's point is that if you are looking to make some money, putting a bunch of code on github with an open source license and helpful readme is extremely unlikely to move you towards that goal.

otterley 14d ago

It's not about the definition of ownership, either. The author of FOSS software retains ownership, unless they explicitly convey it to someone else. It's about how software is licensed--the terms and conditions under which someone can make a copy. That's why it's called the GNU Public License, or the MIT License, and why there's a LICENSE file. The mere act of copying does not convey ownership, and never has.

GrinningFool 14d ago
I think the license was the best tool available for the ideology around ownership.
thayne 14d ago
Yes and no. It isn't about ownership of the project as a whole, but it is about ownership of your copy of the software.
- otterley 14d ago
  I'm an attorney who specialized in copyright law, and I don't even know what you're trying to say.
  - necovek 14d ago
    You are likely too much in it to see the other side. Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant: it's basically a no-copyright world it aims for, but then structured into the copyright world of licensing to use and distribute. It is nothing but a workaround, and copyleft uses it to make the default an even stronger case for reuse (by including sources). In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster).
    - otterley 14d ago
      > Free software licensing is an attempt to make copyright irrelevant The creators of the GPL never said this. That's an interpretation that Richard Stallman would probably disagree with if you asked him. > In no-copyright world, you get a copy of something and do with it as you please. No licenses, no permissions. People frequently consider this "ownership" akin to owning a physical item (you get a copy of a book, or a toaster, and you do not ask for a license to tear a page out or repaint the toaster). I'm aware of all this. It's also irrelevant, because we live in a world with copyright, and despite the fever dreams of some, that's not changing any time soon. Perhaps you should allow the person I was responding to answer for him/herself.
      - necovek 14d ago
        I apologize for intruding on your personal conversation on a public forum. What the RMS's opinion on copyright in software was when he kicked off "free software" is pretty obvious from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html — you may certainly have a different interpretation of "you should be able to give a copy to your friend" than I do.
    - MattPalmer1086 14d ago
      No, it isn't an attempt to make copyright irrelevant. Almost all OSS licenses impose some conditions - even if it is only attribution. OSS licenses are fully part of the copyright system and could not exist without it. Maybe you are thinking of "public domain".
      - necovek 14d ago
        I am talking of how "copyleft" came to be. See the motivation at eg. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.en.html
        MattPalmer1086 14d ago
        It is interesting that a philosophy opposed to ownership and restriction of control has pretty much the most controlling terms of any OSS license - to the extent it is usually banned in any commercial software development. I do understand the copy left rationale - to ensure the freedom to modify and for the community to benefit from those modifications, it is necessary to use the machinery of control!

jaredklewis 14d ago

Ok, but this kind of seems like semantic quibbling. At least since I've been programming (early 2000s), open source has been almost entirely free as in beer. Whatever the origins of the movement, as it actually exists today and has for a long time, both definitions of free are integral parts of the concept. If anyone ever uses the term "open source" in the widely understood, colloquial sense, a dozen eager HN commenters always jump in to explain the exact bounds of the various terms in their own idiolect. I can occasionally enjoy a good debate about semantics, except on HN it's basically always orthogonal to whatever issue is actually being discussed. I've been reading on HN about how the term has been misappropriated for 10 years and I'm very ready to move on. The parent's point is that if you are looking to make some money, putting a bunch of code on github with an open source license and helpful readme is extremely unlikely to move you towards that goal.