211–220 of 371 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Openwashing: https://web.archive.org/web/20241008220257/https://github.co...
Did the authors claim to be open source somewhere I must have missed? Without that, I don't see how this is open-washing...
>The Winamp Collaborative License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they wanted to openwash it and get free labor from the open source community. This is such a ridiculous accusation. Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? Why can't authors just provide access to source code, but reserve some or all of the distribution rights? It's their code, after all. Nobody is forcing 'the open source community' to contribute under…
You can make a source available license and no one will criticize you for it. You put in the license "you can look, but you can't touch". When it becomes openwashing is when you instead write "you can look but you can't compete with us, also feel free to give us a hand". Let me cite: > * Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improvements, enhancements, and bug fixes back to the project. Contributi…
With all due respect, I don't think you know what open-washing means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can make a source available license and no one will criticize you for it. You put in the license "you can look, but you can't touch". When it becomes openwashing is when you instead write "you can look but you can't compete with us, also feel free to give us a hand". Let me cite: > * Contribution to Project: You are encouraged to contribute improvements, enhancements, and bug fixes back to the project. Contributi…
> When it becomes openwashing is when you instead write "you can look but you can't compete with us, also feel free to give us a hand". With all due respect, I don't think you know what open-washing means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they wanted to openwash it and get free labor from the open source community. This is such a ridiculous accusation. Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? Why can't authors just provide access to source code, but reserve some or all of the distribution rights? It's their code, after all. Nobody is forcing 'the open source community' to contribute under…
Didn't the original version of their license state that you weren't allowed to do anything with the code, including forking it? It was "source available" but you're not even allowed to make a local copy of the code to look at it. People as a whole don't mind source available, Louis Rossman's FUTO's software is all source available and while they got a small minority of FOSS diehards complaining about it, they're doin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Did the authors claim to be open source somewhere I must have missed? Without that, I don't see how this is open-washing...
Yes, actually. >The Winamp Collaborative License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, actually. >The Winamp Collaborative License is a free, copyleft license for software and other kinds of works.
Hmm, I must have missed that. I stand corrected, then. Perhaps the author thinks copyleft can be divorced from open source? They didn't claim to be open source here, but they do claim to be (very strong?) copyleft -- almost like a single-source copyleft kind of interpretation. But yeah, I get it now. ty
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GitHub doesn't provide nearly enough tools for moderation though. Like restricting issue creation, comments, and discussions to only certain folks (beyond the per-issue controls).
GitHub has the option to limit issues, pull requests and comments to not-new users, previous contributors and/or previous committers. The setting applies to a whole repository.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The source wasn't open though, it was available, and it was provided in a sense that fully showcased that they did not understand what they were doing. Everything from licenses that were fully unenforceable and non-compliant with Github's license agreement to illegally distributing proprietary code to fundamentally misunderstanding how to use git. It's one thing to provide a source available codebase. That's a choice…
It doesn't meet your definition of the word open. Of course they didn't know what they were doing. It was written by a 19-year-old in the mid 90s. The code is messy with poor licensing and some build tools were included in the repository and they wrote a dumb license for it? Who cares, they shipped a product that 10s of millions of people used and loved and wanted to share that code up to the world and instead of emb…
Bravo indeed, it's important these things get done so that people can be better educated on software licenses and open source. If we want to discourage stealing, we have to tell people stealing is bad.
We do absolutely nobody any favors by carving out exceptions for whatever darling piece of software we love.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It doesn't meet your definition of the word open. That's a disingenuous argument. It doesn't meet the OSI's definition of open. > the community piled on them until they said it was so not worth it that just pulled the whole thing. Yes, but let's be honest: If it wasn't the community, it would have been DMCA takedown requests from the companies whose software was published in the repo. At best, the community hastene…
Assuming they know, care and want to spend resources writing a DMCA request.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> they wanted to openwash it and get free labor from the open source community. This is such a ridiculous accusation. Why do discussions about source-available models often turn into accusations of soliciting free labor? Why can't authors just provide access to source code, but reserve some or all of the distribution rights? It's their code, after all. Nobody is forcing 'the open source community' to contribute under…
What is the point of 'open source' where you're not even allowed to fork the damn repo?
I find value in every one of these types of releases. Sometimes that value is just a chuckle... knowing even successful codebases are as duct-taped together as all the rest.