undefined | Better HN

0 pointschrisseaton3y ago0 comments

The source can still be open even if you aren’t permitted to run it for commerce.

0 comments

dist1ll3y ago

That's referred to as "source-available" to distinguish it from free/libre software.

josephcsible3y ago

No it can't. You're thinking of "visible source" or "source available".

chrisseatonOP3y ago

This an early 'open source' - it did not allow for free commercial use!

http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/fall96/0269.html

> an open source code model ... Individuals can use OpenDOS source for personal use at no cost. Individuals and organizations desiring to commercially redistribute Caldera OpenDOS must acquire a license with an associated small fee.

xyzzy_plugh3y ago

I'm sympathetic but this is an uphill battle unworthy of fighting, in my opinion. Canonicalization of "open source" (versus "OSI Approved Open Source") is overreach of a an organization suffering from declining relevance. OSI is not helping to move the needle on licensing, and has effectively caused the industry to become frozen in time with the same stagnating licenses we had 10-15+ years ago. There's no innovation here, and I'm just tired of this. Instead we have demonic machinations like the BSL growing in relevance because there's no better alternative. I'm just so sick of it.

If you asked any reasonable person what the opposite of "closed source" is, you're going to get a uniform answer from the vast majority or respondents, and a small, irritating answer from a small, increasingly irrelevant group group of folks. I understand the distinction that "source available" aspires to achieve, but it's such an unappetizing term of art that you may as well call it "I can't believe it's not open source".

Champagne, Chocolate, Open Source... they're all noble but doomed uphill battles in colloquialism. Everyone knows what you mean.

If you want to be correct, be truly pedantic, instead of shifting the ambiguity: French Champagne, Belgian Chocolate, OSI Approved License.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a diehard FOSS supporter, I sponsor and contribute, I encourage my employers to be good global citizens with respect to FOSS and have complied with licenses by releasing modifications under appropriate licenses. I even pay Drew DeVault money. But ultimately he and everyone else arguing to enshrine the term "open source" will couple the fate of their opinions to that of the OSI and at best, it will all be a footnote in the pages of history.

Will we be using the same OSI approved licenses in 10, 50, 100, 1000 years? Will the OSI permit term "open source" to be used to refer to something other than the current licenses?

djur3y ago

The reason to defend the definition of "open source" as it currently stands is to prohibit organizations from profiting from the accumulated goodwill of the open source community and movement without actually adhering to the ethical standards of that movement. We've seen in the past that companies will release source under an encumbered license and claim to be "open" as a result -- the FSF and OSI were founded in response to that type of maneuver.

As far as I can tell, it's been a success. The recent batch of nonfree licenses have all had to emphasize that they are not open source in the face of public backlash. Making euphemisms like "source available" unappetizing is exactly the point.

Furthermore, the OSI is just a group, as is the FSF. If the OSI and FSF folded tomorrow the definitions of "open source" and "free software" would not change. It's not necessary for the OSI to approve a license for the software to be open source, so "OSI Approved License" is not sufficient. "Licensed on terms compatible with the Open Source Definition" might be more accurate, but "open source" seems like an adequate shorthand.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse