391–400 of 487 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So similar to a clause in the license that says "don't use it for evil". Many companies will want a license that doesn't have that clause in it, because it is so ill defined.
I find it funny that Crockford gave Microsoft the rights to use his software for evil, requesting nothing in return. The clause really was just a joke.
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…
But we do need a gatekeeper - that's where you're wrong. Without it, we don't get a fair review of licenses by people most adept at understanding what Open Source is. Without it, we will go back to the wild west of licensing where we have hundreds of OSS licenses that each have their own little clauses and are written by developers, not lawyers, so they don't really hold up in court. Open Source is for corporations t…
The reason I believe in open source software is that it empowers the communities and users behind the software, despite (and sometimes, in spite of) the leadership, nobody controls open source software. If the linux kernel went in a direction I didn't like, either with how they approve code change requests, or by adding in code that I don't like, I can subvert their control over the codebase with my own fork, with blackjack and hookers, and compete, because they ultimentally have no control over their codebase, it belongs to the community.
This should apply to licenses as well, there should be no authority, no gatekeeper, just the community.
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…
But we do need a gatekeeper - that's where you're wrong. Without it, we don't get a fair review of licenses by people most adept at understanding what Open Source is. Without it, we will go back to the wild west of licensing where we have hundreds of OSS licenses that each have their own little clauses and are written by developers, not lawyers, so they don't really hold up in court. Open Source is for corporations t…
The correct term is forked. They forked the agpl and made modifications.
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…
You are so off base. You may have been writing source-available software, but it's not open source unless you know the OSI's definition. THAT is what everybody abides by to make sure that the licenses are fair and in the spirit of open source software. Open source is an agreed upon definition for software provided under an OSI or FSF approved license. To state anything else shows that you DON'T understand what open s…
So no, it's not some universally-agreed on definition and trying to hawk it as such is dishonest.
Did the FSF & OSI help establish the framework that's allowing us to have this conversation? Yes. Do they get to dictate that conversation in 2018? Nope.
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…
This shouldn't be surprising -- it blatantly violates the spirit of section 9 (if not the actual wording). I would be quite shocked if the OSI decides the new license is "open source".
> 9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software. The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
I wonder what RMS / the FSF have to say about it...
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.
No it's not. It's some random group of people that usurped the term and tried to take control of the marketing of a larger movement that was already underway and would have happened with or without them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your 3 examples have a LOT of swes that work full time on open source/cncf projects not to mention they're platinum members of CNCF/Linux Foundation, etc. So I think that's a bit disingenuous. They're not funnelling billions into those tunnels but a huge majority of contributors are Redhat, Google, Coreos, Huawei, Alibaba, Intel and various other big names that definitely use open source tech and provide a huge benef…
From a global perspective it looks pretty fair that some company uses a lot of open source software and also contributes a lot. But it doesn't get anyone paid. If you're toiling away unpaid on Redis or MongoDB or whatever, the fact that Google gave the world k8s does not help you.
I’d hazard a guess that even the most prolific open source individual contributors use more open source software written by others than they contribute to.
Nobody individually, could really ‘pull their weight’ with respect to contributing back to the community. I doubt most corporations could feasibly contribute back more software than they use, even if they tried.
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…
Please edit your comment to be more accurate.
If you later approve the license, then under your company's own definition of "open source" that means it was always open source, even now, so saying they are not open source when you admit you have not reviewed the license fully yet, is inaccurate, and could very well lead your company into legal liability if your statement turns out to be untrue and mongodb sues for slander.
furthermore: If you later deny the license, that may mean it was always not open source. May.
Your board is not the gatekeeper to the open source community, you are not the controller, authority, or president of the open source community, and the open source community as a whole is the only body that can decide what is "Open Source"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 OSD may not be the de-jure definition of "open source", but it is the de-facto definition. The statement above is correct in all but a trivial, pedantic sense.