5 ms·
The same could be said of Oracle's MySQL. However since MySQL is an open source project, you could always do what the original author did - fork it. And since
by nemothekid 12y ago
The same could be said of Oracle's MySQL. However since MySQL is an open source project, you could always do what the original author did - fork it.
And since the license doesn't restrict you in any way on how you can distribute that fork, Chef is still open source.
I think this is important distinction and the title of this article just serves to flame the Chef development team. "Open Source", much like "Free as in Freedom", shouldn't be thrown around because you don't like how something is run. A lot of people spent a lot of time to create the open source movement to allow anyone to use code they wanted too. Once you start trying to create rules such as "Open source also means you have to accept my commits", you scare people away from OSS.
- dllthomas 12y ago"And since the license doesn't restrict you in any way on how you can distribute that fork, Chef is still open source." You may be aware, but a few things here make me unsure - permissively licensed software is Open Source, but copyleft software is also Open Source. (And, for the record, permissively licensed software is also Free Software).
- nemothekid 12y agoYou are right, what I should have said "doesn't restrict you in any way on how you can run your fork"
- dllthomas 12y agoWell, it's "you can run your fork for any purpose, modify your fork freely, and distribute your fork and those modifications under the same license." If you can also distribute them under a more restrictive license, the license is permissive. If you can't, the license is copyleft.