321–330 of 487 posts
None of OSI's Open Source licenses (including AGPL) protect creators financial interest in the cloud first world. Period. I want to issue "View and Internal Use License" for my work. Anyone can view the source code, modify, and use the software for their own benefit as they see fit. Under no circumstances can anyone sell/re-distribute/host the paid version of software or any derivative thereof. Why can't OSI create s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a fine interpretation of the term for amateurs. By which I mean, it's probably fine to think of things that way when you're working in an amateur capacity. If you're working in a non-amateur capacity, thinking about things that way could result in unwittingly exposing yourself to more legal risk than you want.
If I am using an open source project I make sure to understand the license rather than blindly trusting some organisation. Seems pretty amateur not to do this.
Vice President of the Open Source Initiative here. MongoDB submitted this new license for approval by OSI at the same time that they announced that they'd relicensed all of their code. We wish they'd started the process prior to the announcement, but what's done is done. The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. As the license review process…
1. The idea that OSI seriously thinks it gets to decide what counts as open source is laughable. This is akin to Linux being released for the first time, and Microsoft issuing a warning that they have not yet verified that Linux is a "real" operating system, and to stay tuned for their final judgement. The arrogance here is hilarious. I've been working in open source for years and I've never, ever heard of OSI. 2. Al…
Code that is available because someone leaked it is also available in some way/shape/form, yet probably doesn't count as "open source".
Not every situation in which second or third party outsiders have access to source code is "open".
We don't have to accept OSI's exact definition with all its quirks (WTF is "technology-neutral"), but the salient features of OSI's definition jive with the widespread understanding that open source allows basically allows free redistribution and use of a program in source code form, with or without modifications.
Vice President of the Open Source Initiative here. MongoDB submitted this new license for approval by OSI at the same time that they announced that they'd relicensed all of their code. We wish they'd started the process prior to the announcement, but what's done is done. The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. As the license review process…
> The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. Perhaps you meant to say "is not OSI Certified", because the OSI don't appear to have a right to restrict use of the phrase "open source". See what's on your own website: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p... On the other comments in this thread, even though MongoDB have "…
The OSI doesn't define what Free/Libre software is, the Free Software Foundation does. The OSI is in charge of the common definition of "Open Source" software, which is accepted outside of non-software or idiosyncratic usages (such as "open source is when I show my references" or "open source is when I derive my conclusion from publicly available information" which is becoming the common definition in the intelligence field.)
It's good when we have a common definition, and discuss that definition rather than the label; it's a waste of time to argue "of course it's organic; it's carbon based!"
One thing that we can both agree on is that more people are familiar with the OSI's definition of "open source" than are familiar with your personal definition, so it's probably more productive to talk about the one more people are familiar with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This seems like FUD to me. While OSI may have coined the term "open source" as a reaction to the word "free software" in the past, it did not invent the idea of free software. Rather, the term open source was a reaction to the desire for commerical enterprises to avoid saying software was free. Now it rejects the same argument from developers of software to make a profit, which I find ironic relative to the founding…
The OSI encourages and supports all people and organisations to profit from free and open source software. The ability to do so is enshrined in Item 6 of the Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated The Open Source Definition provides a single point of reference for what it means for a project to be "open source." Licenses are submitted for approval by those who wish to prove that the license prov…
1. "Licences that conform to the OSD are open source". Agreed.
2. "Licences that do not conform to the OSD are not open source". Ok, let's run with that for now.
That is not what you said upthread. You said "MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE". Nope. Even for those who accept the OSD as the sole definition of open source, you haven't yet established whether MongoDB's new licence is 1 or 2. You cannot categorically (capitally!) say "IS NOT OPEN SOURCE" until you establish that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. It might still be open source. It's accurate to say it's not under an OSI approved open source licence, but that's not exactly the same thing.
The OSI is the founder and DEFINER of the term "open source" so saying that it's open source without an OSI approved license is like saying your app's an approved Android app without it first being reviewed. Get it?? Open Source is a term coined by the OSI.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open source for most people means whether you can see and modify the source code. Not whether OSI gives it some arbitrary stamp of approval.
That's a fine interpretation of the term for amateurs. By which I mean, it's probably fine to think of things that way when you're working in an amateur capacity. If you're working in a non-amateur capacity, thinking about things that way could result in unwittingly exposing yourself to more legal risk than you want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. The idea that OSI seriously thinks it gets to decide what counts as open source is laughable. This is akin to Linux being released for the first time, and Microsoft issuing a warning that they have not yet verified that Linux is a "real" operating system, and to stay tuned for their final judgement. The arrogance here is hilarious. I've been working in open source for years and I've never, ever heard of OSI. 2. Al…
Open source is a term of art with an agreed upon definition, and it has been for 20 years which, not-so-coincidentally, is also when the Open Source Initiative was founded. The fact that you've never heard of OSI means we've been doing our job well enough that you've never needed to know about it. The fact that you've never heard of OSI does NOT mean that it's not legitimate, and frankly, that kind of rhetoric is jus…
The OSI can claim/define what is wishes to but in practice it has lost authorship of the 'open source' definition.
Just like Google/Xerox/Kleenex/Taser/Bubble Wrap/Dumpster/Escalator/thermos/Chapstick/Frisbee/Photoshop et al.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is https://www.fsf.org/campaigns supposed to prove that the FSF has "far-reaching political ambitions"? It's not really different in function from https://opensource.org/AdvocateCircle and squarely fails within achieving the goals of free software. The FSF wants free software to be adopted as widely as possible. The OSI supposedly wants open-source to be as widely adopted as possible, doesn't it?
Looking at both links it is completely obvious which is the political of the two. You are really stretching calling the Advocate Circle the same as the various FSF campaigns. Some of the FSF campaigns listed are "surveillance", "upgrade from Windows" and DRM.
All of these restrict your freedoms, so that someone else is in control of the program and not the user. This is very much what free software stands for. So in reality, you're disagreeing with the principles of free software themselves.
> surveillance
Directly interferes with you being in control of the program, if it spies on you, violating the principle of free software that the user should be in control of the program and not the other way around.
> upgrade from Windows
So the Free Software Foundation advocating for the adoption of Free Software. Isn't that what it should be doing?
> DRM
DRM, by its very definition, restricts the freedom of the user to run the software in any way they wish, thus violating the free software principles.
None of these imply a "wide-reaching" political agenda.
Vice President of the Open Source Initiative here. MongoDB submitted this new license for approval by OSI at the same time that they announced that they'd relicensed all of their code. We wish they'd started the process prior to the announcement, but what's done is done. The result, however, is that at this moment, MongoDB is under a non-approved license and therefore IS NOT OPEN SOURCE. As the license review process…
You sound like a fucking tyrant.