71–80 of 172 posts
What principles and values of the open source movement are protected by staunchly refusing to allow "source available" to call itself open source? To an outsider it looks like counterproductive bickering between people on the same team.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
See https://writing.kemitchell.com/2018/11/04/Copyleft-Bust-Up#b... MongoDB invested sufficient resources in drafting an update to the AGPL. That license is called the Server Side Public License. Controversy ensued.
But SSPL was not approved by OSI. BY "investing" I mean getting it to the same status as AGPL :)
I love open source, but I'd welcome less of it and more "source available" projects. I think several large coorporations are pushing the boundaries of what "open source" can actually mean in good faith. Especially several recent big name cases where profit models weren't thought out during start up and then licenses for projects aee suddenly changes. The term has erroded a lot recently, I'd be happy to see less, but…
Why? What is meaningful about sharing code with the threat of a lawsuit if someone copies it? Is sounds like you want the term to be erroded?
You cannot meaningfully consent to running software on your devices, or running your life on software, when that software's source is unavailable.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I apologize for having missed the mark with your question. > I will infer that "anybody can do whatever they want with this code, OR ELSE YOU'RE NOT WORTHY" is the principle you are referring to. I feel like there's cynicism in your phrasing, but a perhaps more neutral phrasing would be "Don't pick and choose what specific circumstances your users can use this for".
There was of course and I edited it out. Why is it important to give "everything" to the users? They have the source code. Why is it so important that they can use it for whatever they want?
What principles and values of the open source movement are protected by staunchly refusing to allow "source available" to call itself open source? To an outsider it looks like counterproductive bickering between people on the same team.
Some people have internalized the words "open" "source" to mean more than the words, even going so far as to eschew the benefit (which was at the heart of the Stallman problem) because it doesn't fit the desired ethos and license. It's counterproductive, indeed.
I always wonder why people bother with providing source under a source available license. It makes outside contributions a lot less likely. Your active community of people working on the code base effectively becomes your employees. There's little to no benefit to outside users. Any work they do on the code is effectively free work they do for you that entitles them to nothing. Including free usage and distribution o…
And the original authors don't have to worry as much about Amazon eating their lunch.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? What is meaningful about sharing code with the threat of a lawsuit if someone copies it? Is sounds like you want the term to be erroded?
User consent. Uninformed consent is not consent. You cannot meaningfully consent to running software on your devices, or running your life on software, when that software's source is unavailable.
Personally I think differentiation between "open source" and "source available" is good. Open source, is, essentially software that I expect to be able to use commercially and tweak if required - but I'm own my own, and I pay for support. Source available means I can basically help debug issues I have...but I expect that a paid licence is required and will have a selection of limitations (number of nodes, etc).
"Source Available" means that it can become "Source Unavailable" overnight. See the "Our Machinery" fiasco. Yes, Open Source isn't a complete defense against this (especially when there are copyright assignments). However, it sure makes it both a lot harder to pull off and a lot less useful to even try.
In neither case does the change apply retroactively. It only applies to new contributions after the license change.