141–150 of 160 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand it a bit differently. They could not remove the clause (as they do not dictate the license), so the clause stays. The software is thus licensed the same way as the original repo and neither can be called open source. Whoever sued these folks for false advertising should sue Neo4j as well.
But isn't Neo4j suing Graph Found? Why would Neo4j sue themselves?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They specifically cite the misrepresentation of the software as 'free and open source', they specifically say it's literally false as opposed to simply misleading, and they specifically say it's because they couldn't remove the Commons Clause. That means they are, in fact, judging whether the definition of free and open source includes the Commons Clause, and specifically judging that it doesn't. Either that means th…
As a free and open source replacement. The sentence include replacement.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not really convincing. Sure the term "open" and "source" have appeared in conjunction together previously, but it was rare for it to be used as a proper noun, instead of an adjective describing a noun, and even if it was, it was OSI that populized the term. Regardless of any historical context, in contemporary usage, "open source" has a commonly understand meaning and its what the OSI says it is. Other meaning…
> "open source" has a commonly understand meaning and its what the OSI says it is I would contest this, based on the many discussions there have been on HN about this, as well as many people (including many "normal" software developers who are not deeply invested in open source) I've met and talked to over the years having only a vague notion of what "open source" is exactly (often being something along the lines of…
How about if you pick 1000 random devs involved in licensing? I don't see that it matters what a random dev knows, so long as the group using the term knows and has a consistent definition.
To put another way, how many people actually know the precise definition of the term "organic" (as used in grocery stores)? Probably not that many, at best they have a vauge notion, and the term has much wider used historical definition than open spurce does. I would still say its morally wrong for a company to use an alternative "definition" to attract customers to their product. It would be false advertising in exactly the same way misusing open source would be, regardless of what their customer base knows about the details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "open source" has a commonly understand meaning and its what the OSI says it is I would contest this, based on the many discussions there have been on HN about this, as well as many people (including many "normal" software developers who are not deeply invested in open source) I've met and talked to over the years having only a vague notion of what "open source" is exactly (often being something along the lines of…
> I'd be willing to bet a substantial amount of money that if you were to ask 1,000 random software developers about Open Source, the OSI, and the OSD over half of them won't be able to give you a coherent answer on what these things are exactly. How about if you pick 1000 random devs involved in licensing? I don't see that it matters what a random dev knows, so long as the group using the term knows and has a consis…
A bunch of people here are conflating the concepts of "free software" and "open source". these are not the same. "Free" (as in speech, or beer) software is governed by the license it is published under. Open source simply refers to the fact that the source code is publicly available. Open source is a prerequisite for truly free (as in speech) software, but the opposite is not.
freeware != free software ~= open source != source available
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, but if you try to bullshit a proprietary license as "open source" you're going to catch hell from a whole lot of people. It's not just the OSI that has a stake in the OSD. A few companies have tried it and backed off.
Yes, you will get criticism, depending on the circumstances. If it's proprietary, sure, if it's public domain, probably not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you will get criticism, depending on the circumstances. If it's proprietary, sure, if it's public domain, probably not.
If it's public domain then it is open source as per the OSI definition.
But everybody kinda knows that CC0 is more or less in the spirit of the OSD (so long as there are no patents involved) and OSI doesn't go around hollering about it, because it's not that important.
As opposed to the Commons Clause, and other historical attempts to undermine "open source" as being nothing more than "source available" — those are battles worth fighting. The OSD is more important than OSI. If OSI were ever to change the OSD in a substantive way, there would be a huge revolt against them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, you will get criticism, depending on the circumstances. If it's proprietary, sure, if it's public domain, probably not.
If it's public domain then it is open source as per the OSI definition.
For example: https://opensource.org/node/878