What about the maintainer's right to not have their hands tied as they evolve a project by one person issuing a custom license on their PR? I agree with your final suggestion of forking off (hah) if you have a problem with the CLA... But it's unwarranted to say a maintainer protecting himself from a huge additional coordination burden is a kick in anyone else's groin.
Don’t sign a CLA
141–150 of 196 posts
Re: Don’t sign a CLA
#142Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> As they say, not all open source is FOSS > This isn't true - you mean "not all open source is copyleft". Yes it is, and I'm not sure the commenter does. Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. The term "free and open-source" signifies both. > This is also not true. You should review the open source definition: > https://opensource.org/osd That is not the definition of open…
> Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. Other than version 1 of the Apple Public Source license, which is considered open source but not free (and also now entirely unused), what cases are you thinking of?
In the past I've run into projects where the source was on GitHub where you could compile yourself, but binaries needed to be purchased. Lemme see if I can find it
Re: Don’t sign a CLA
#143Earlier quoted context omitted.
>> As they say, not all open source is FOSS > This isn't true - you mean "not all open source is copyleft". Yes it is, and I'm not sure the commenter does. Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. The term "free and open-source" signifies both. > This is also not true. You should review the open source definition: > https://opensource.org/osd That is not the definition of open…
No. "Source available" is not the same as "open source". https://haacked.com/archive/2006/07/26/CodeAvailableVsOpenSo...
Oh well, if you say so!
The point is the adjective is commonly used imprecisely, despite a minority’s desire for it to be only used to describe a precise circumstance.
Genie, meet bottle.
Re: Don’t sign a CLA
#144Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess I stand corrected. I never heard of the “Open Watcom” license before. But if it really does not allow modified copies to run locally then it is violating criteria 1, and 3 of the Open Source Definition. I am surprised the OSI approved it.
Here's the licence. * http://perforce.openwatcom.org:4000/@md=d&c=GxS@//depot/open... As you can see, it says the opposite. Per §2 you must publish your modified source if you deploy it per §1 in ways including "any and all internal use or distribution of Covered Code within Your business or organization except for R&D use and/or Personal Use". Richard Stallman dislikes the idea of being forced to publish source code…
Thank you for taking the time to explain that.
I guess it really comes down to Criteria 1 of the open source definition being worded as "...shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away..."
But this is surely an oddity. It's almost like someone went out of their way to come up with a license to prove they're different.
Re: Don’t sign a CLA
#145Have we forgotten the Linux Code of Conduct controversy? Contributors threatened to remove their code from the kernel. A CLA would completely prevent that.
Re: Don’t sign a CLA
#146Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. Other than version 1 of the Apple Public Source license, which is considered open source but not free (and also now entirely unused), what cases are you thinking of?
In the past I've run into projects where the source was on GitHub where you could compile yourself, but binaries needed to be purchased. Lemme see if I can find it
That is still free software and open source.
Re: Don’t sign a CLA
#147Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. Other than version 1 of the Apple Public Source license, which is considered open source but not free (and also now entirely unused), what cases are you thinking of?
Epic's Unreal Engine is another example
Could you please elaborate?
Re: Don’t sign a CLA
#148Earlier quoted context omitted.
Author here. Thanks for writing up your thoughts. >As they say, not all open source is FOSS This isn't true - you mean "not all open source is copyleft". >> Free and open source software licenses grant explicit freedoms to three groups: the maintainers, the users, and the contributors. >This is not the case of all open source licenses This is also not true. You should review the open source definition: https://openso…
>> As they say, not all open source is FOSS > This isn't true - you mean "not all open source is copyleft". Yes it is, and I'm not sure the commenter does. Software may be free but not open-source, and it may be open-source but not free. The term "free and open-source" signifies both. > This is also not true. You should review the open source definition: > https://opensource.org/osd That is not the definition of open…
That's incorrect. They invented the term. Contrary to the public belief, the term open source did not exist before open source definition.
Re: Don’t sign a CLA
#149The reality is some companies simply wouldn't contribute open source projects if they didn't have the flexibility afforded by requiring contributors sign a CLA. Maybe you would consider that preferable, but I don't. They have a right to require a CLA, just as I have a right to not contribute if I don't want to sign a CLA.
Re: Don’t sign a CLA
#150Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. "Source available" is not the same as "open source". https://haacked.com/archive/2006/07/26/CodeAvailableVsOpenSo...
Oh well, if you say so! The point is the adjective is commonly used imprecisely, despite a minority’s desire for it to be only used to describe a precise circumstance. Genie, meet bottle.
> despite a minority’s desire for it to be only used to describe a precise circumstance.
The vast majority of the software industry uses "open source" correctly. A small minority of people and companies with a vested interest in sowing confusion to promote their "source available" business models misuses the term and creates FUD.