Tgppl, a new type of open-source license • Hacker News Board

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#51

Post by nsajko » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 9:12 AM UTC

geofft wrote: post #40

nsajko wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Still, the claim of "open source" or "libre" or "free software" doesn't hold water effectively if there is nobody to verify it (lawyers are probably needed, too). License proliferation is a separate issue. BTW, the OSI people on their mailing list weren't convinced that the license is conformant (during the grace period) in 2008, 2009, or 2013. Hypothetically there could have been a change of heart since, but I can't…

> BTW, the OSI people on their mailing list weren't convinced that the license is conformant (during the grace period) in 2008, 2009, or 2013. Thanks, that's interesting. If you happen to have the links to the discussion it'd be worth figuring out what they thought was nonconformant (and whether it can be fixed).

One issue seems to be that it wasn't seen as desirable to promote something that is not source-available under whatever license, which conflicts with the main idea of the TGPPL of keeping the software closed-source during the grace period. Another issue was ensuring the source becomes available after the grace period as intended. I may be wrong, though, as I haven't read even half of the extensive discussions on this topic.

OSI board meetings discussing TGPPL briefly: https://opensource.org/minutes20090205 https://opensource.org/minutes20090304 https://opensource.org/minutes20090401

Relevant mailing list threads:

Dec 2008 thread: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

Jan 2009 thread: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

Feb 2009 thread: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-review_lists....

Jul 2013 threads: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists... https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...

Dec 2013 message: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...

Jul 2018 thread: https://lists.opensource.org/pipermail/license-discuss_lists...

You might also be slightly interested in this small Wikipedia page section relevant to the motivation for the TGPPL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_models_for_open-sourc...

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#52

Post by nsajko » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 9:13 AM UTC

amadeuspagel wrote: post #50

nsajko wrote: post #9

This (under the same name and version 1.0) has already been presented to FSF and OSI in the 2000s and 2010 on their mailing lists and other places, so I guess it didn't get approval. Since it thus isn't an open-source license, why present it as such in article title - starting out dishonest is probably not a good idea. If I'm wrong and it is approved by OSI, that info should probably be more prominent in the blog pos…

There's nothing dishonest about having a different definition of open source then the FSF or OSI.

Thus my "EDIT3" at the end of the post you replied to.

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#53

Post by numlock86 » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 10:58 AM UTC

Can someone summarize in like 2 sentences what this license is trying to solve?

The article mentions underfunding, but since this is a license and not a price tag I don't see how this is going to change that. Also from the comments it reads like this is going to limit usage within "big $$$ cloud providers". Well, my wild guess would be that such projects would get even less attention (read as: money) then.

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#54

Post by pessimizer » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 11:55 AM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #34

nsajko wrote: post #9

This (under the same name and version 1.0) has already been presented to FSF and OSI in the 2000s and 2010 on their mailing lists and other places, so I guess it didn't get approval. Since it thus isn't an open-source license, why present it as such in article title - starting out dishonest is probably not a good idea. If I'm wrong and it is approved by OSI, that info should probably be more prominent in the blog pos…

I don't feel like we're going to make any progress in this space while a single entity is considered the sole authorizer of something being open source or not.

"Open Source" is an arbitrary label assigned to licenses accepted by the OSI as "Open Source," just like "Free Software" is an arbitrary label assigned to licenses accepted by the FSF as "Free Software." Accepting other definitions as "Open Source" is just like accepting other definitions of meters and grams.

It's also piggybacking. You don't need to be Open Source, you can be something else. You don't have to use the word "open" to mean "available, and can be used under these conditions." It's not a standard usage. "Open" normally means that something can be passed through something else i.e. that something else is not blocked, or that it is currently doing business.

People calling their own licenses "open source" when they're not approved is a way to attempt to trade on the reputation and regard established by licenses that were written or approved by the OSI. That reputation and regard is a result of the consistent standards that OSI have applied to the license language that they approve.

The cases for calling explicitly unapproved licenses "open source" are no more coherent than a hypothetical argument about how we can't let a group of four unelected people, half of them dead and the other half very old and deeply embedded in the industry, decide what bands can be called The Beatles.

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#55

Post by arp242 » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 12:26 PM UTC

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #34

nsajko wrote: post #9

This (under the same name and version 1.0) has already been presented to FSF and OSI in the 2000s and 2010 on their mailing lists and other places, so I guess it didn't get approval. Since it thus isn't an open-source license, why present it as such in article title - starting out dishonest is probably not a good idea. If I'm wrong and it is approved by OSI, that info should probably be more prominent in the blog pos…

I don't feel like we're going to make any progress in this space while a single entity is considered the sole authorizer of something being open source or not.

HN: "Facebook, Google, and other Big Corp being gatekeepers is censorship and horrible!"

Also HN: "The OSI is the One True arbiter of the term 'Open Source' and anyone who uses it in a way that disagrees with the OSI is dishonest and trying to cheat you!"

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#56

Post by indymike » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 1:10 PM UTC

nsajko wrote: post #15

geofft wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a number of other reasons the OSI doesn't approve licenses, such as avoiding license proliferation https://opensource.org/proliferation . As a simple example, there are a huge number of variants of the 4-clause BSD licenses where the advertising clause lists more and more people besides the University of California; they're all open-source licenses under the Open Source Definition, but the OSI isn't intereste…

Still, the claim of "open source" or "libre" or "free software" doesn't hold water effectively if there is nobody to verify it (lawyers are probably needed, too). License proliferation is a separate issue. BTW, the OSI people on their mailing list weren't convinced that the license is conformant (during the grace period) in 2008, 2009, or 2013. Hypothetically there could have been a change of heart since, but I can't…

Contracts can't be verified like code. You have to go to court and actually litigate before you actually know for sure. . A lawyer's opinion... well, there are usually at least two opinions in every lawsuit. One is usually "this is legal" the other "this is illegal". We have trials to determine who is right, and then sometimes, a couple rounds of appeals.

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#57

Post by lucideer » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 2:00 PM UTC

amadeuspagel wrote: post #50

nsajko wrote: post #9

This (under the same name and version 1.0) has already been presented to FSF and OSI in the 2000s and 2010 on their mailing lists and other places, so I guess it didn't get approval. Since it thus isn't an open-source license, why present it as such in article title - starting out dishonest is probably not a good idea. If I'm wrong and it is approved by OSI, that info should probably be more prominent in the blog pos…

There's nothing dishonest about having a different definition of open source then the FSF or OSI.

I disagree.

You can make that statement in theory, for a general term without any biasing factors.

For a term like "open source", that has a generally strong positive connotation, using it to self-define when your own definition of it liberally includes yourself, while the popular definition does not, strongly implies your alternate definition is designed for self-benefit. This is definitely dishonest.

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#58

Post by cycloptic » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 2:31 PM UTC

arp242 wrote: post #55

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel like we're going to make any progress in this space while a single entity is considered the sole authorizer of something being open source or not.

HN: "Facebook, Google, and other Big Corp being gatekeepers is censorship and horrible!" Also HN: "The OSI is the One True arbiter of the term 'Open Source' and anyone who uses it in a way that disagrees with the OSI is dishonest and trying to cheat you!" ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

If what you want is a situation where anyone can just call anything open source and individual users have to manually re-check all the licensing for any given project that gets posted to HN to make sure it doesn't add additional restrictions or conflict with the common MIT/BSD/GPL, I'm pretty sure that's already happening. There isn't any big corp gatekeeping -- they don't care if the community gets stuck dealing with fallout from these new licenses because that means they didn't have to pay the legal costs to get it tested in court. And in the meantime if the big corp really wants to be a customer they'll just ask to buy a standard proprietary license because it's cheaper and doesn't involve legal.

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#59

Post by ocdtrekkie » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 3:00 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #54

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel like we're going to make any progress in this space while a single entity is considered the sole authorizer of something being open source or not.

"Open Source" is an arbitrary label assigned to licenses accepted by the OSI as "Open Source," just like "Free Software" is an arbitrary label assigned to licenses accepted by the FSF as "Free Software." Accepting other definitions as "Open Source" is just like accepting other definitions of meters and grams. It's also piggybacking. You don't need to be Open Source, you can be something else. You don't have to use th…

It's insane to me that people can argue the OSI owns the phrase "open source" or that the FSF owns the phrase "free software".

In the current scenario, where the OSI has flatly failed to act to do anything necessary to protect open source as a workable concept, at what point can we decide that they aren't adequate stewards of the term?

Re: Tgppl, a new type of open-source license

#60

Post by ocdtrekkie » Mon, Sep 07, 2020, 3:03 PM UTC

geofft wrote: post #42

ocdtrekkie wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't feel like we're going to make any progress in this space while a single entity is considered the sole authorizer of something being open source or not.

It's not - there are two entities (FSF and OSI), they happen to have similar definitions, and a number of important organizations (Linux distros, vendors with special plans for open-source users, employers with open-source contribution policies, etc.) all happen to have specified their definition in terms of one or both of those because they're pretty good definitions . For instance, Ubuntu's licensing policy has tex…

I would say, by and large, every conversation about a new license is near immediate dismissal because the OSI hasn't approved it. The conversation that should happen rarely does because the OSI has decided they have no desire or need to make open source development sustainable.