101–110 of 110 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your understanding is correct. Open source means nothing more than you can view the source. It's just typically open source software also comes with a license that allows you to use it free, either with MIT or similar. OSS !== FOSS
Your understanding is not correct. Open source does not only mean than you can view the source. If you're not familiar with the term, look it up. Don't make things up.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your understanding is correct. Open source means nothing more than you can view the source. It's just typically open source software also comes with a license that allows you to use it free, either with MIT or similar. OSS !== FOSS
You are thinking of Source-Available Software[1], not Open Source. The sets of Open Source and Free Software licenses are (almost) identical. OSS == FOSS == FLOSS == FS, etc. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Linux kernel is developed[0] nicely without GitHub. All that’s really needed is a mailing list and someone (who doesn’t fear Google or RIAA suing them personally) willing to host the DVCS server. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Source_code_manag...
I wonder if sr.ht is down to do it? That’s kind of the anti big tech hosting service.
Great, now Imagemagick will receive a DMCA takedown notice! Can someone encode Imagemagick as audio using sox?
Sure, in Phil Zimmerman-style! We can convert it to audio, maybe using dialup-like FSK/PSK, and we can even upload it to YouTube with a spiffy bit of 'cover-art!' That way, whenever anyone needs a copy of ImageMagick, they can just download the vi-- Oh.
Genuine question, how viable is it, if we (code monkeys) created some sort of a blacklist of the entities that are not allowed to use our open source projects? -- something like "We don't support Internet Explorer" but a bit more aggressive? like "These entities don't understand the Internet, we don't support them, they cant use our software"? Maintaining that list would be a ton of work and edge cases tho :/
Then it’s no longer open-source projects.
1) The source is viewable (regardless of license)
2) The source is licensed under an OSI-approved license [1] (and thus also viewable)
There other definitions that I've seen as well, but I think these two are the main ones in play here.
It's clear to me from the context that slooonz is using the 2nd definition, but it's also clear from the disagreement that others are using the 1st definition (or one close to it).
Down thread [0], another user linked a page from the FSF [2]. It says:
>The official definition of “open source software” (which is published by the Open Source Initiative and is too long to include here) was derived indirectly from our criteria for free software. It is not the same; it is a little looser in some respects. Nonetheless, their definition agrees with our definition in most cases.
>However, the obvious meaning for the expression “open source software”—and the one most people seem to think it means—is “You can look at the source code.” That criterion is much weaker than the free software definition, much weaker also than the official definition of open source. It includes many programs that are neither free nor open source.
>Since the obvious meaning for “open source” is not the meaning that its advocates intend, the result is that most people misunderstand the term.
So I think the disagreements come from not defining Open Source in the same way.
And for the record, I agree (using definition 2 from above) that adding a clause to the license to restrict who can use the software would make it no longer Open Source per OSI's definition [3]:
> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
>The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24882631
[1] https://opensource.org/licenses
[2] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then it’s no longer open-source projects.
Open Source is not the same as Free Software and does not say much about the license other than that the source can be viewed. At least that is my understanding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Open Source is not the same as Free Software and does not say much about the license other than that the source can be viewed. At least that is my understanding.
Your understanding is correct. Open source means nothing more than you can view the source. It's just typically open source software also comes with a license that allows you to use it free, either with MIT or similar. OSS !== FOSS
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, but we could clarify it. If you sue or take any legal action against an open source program, you forfeit the right to use any software that is open source, forever. Which basically means you can no longer use a computer, which in pratice should be a strong enough deterent.
But how would that be enforceable?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe we need apache with DMCA clause (like patent clause)-if you ever invoke DMCA your license is forfeit? I'm not sure how viable it is - the GPL is hack on top of copyright - but the DMCA is an extension on top of copyright too (however ill advised).
DMCA does have legitimate uses, though. If someone was stealing my IP, I'd certainly consider invoking it. It just becomes a problem when big companies with lawyers™ use it to stop someone from doing something legal that they don't like.