161–170 of 509 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I find amusing is that it's built on top of Django and of course uses a few other dependencies[0], and without them the project wouldn't even exist... 0. https://github.com/HermanMartinus/bearblog/blob/master/requi...
That argument can be made for virtually every piece of software. We all build on top of the work of others.
We are also entering the age of "hey AI, take this repo, reimplement the same functionality". Now, no LLM is currently anywhere near doing that for ElasticSearch. But for a project with 4845 lines of Python code? (as per tokei) Definitely doable, with a bit of handholding and manual fixing. Would that be a derivative work? Maybe, but that would be a hard legal battle.
> Now, no LLM is currently anywhere near doing that for ElasticSearch. You could probably feed all of ElasticSearch into an LLM and ask it to "reimplement it" successfully. But why would you even bother? There's already an existing open-source alternative called OpenSearch [1]. [1]: https://github.com/opensearch-project/opensearch
As far as I understand it, the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd is that if Amazon can't make it one of their AWS offerings then it isn't true open source, and they'll get very upset at you if you claim it is. I'd like to see some recognition from this crowd of the "free-ride competition" problem as this author puts it. What Herman is doing is a service to us all, and we should find a term (better than 'source-availa…
Freedom 0 is the freedom to run the software for any purpose. You can't deny users this freedom "for their own good", or to spite big corporations, and still be free software.
Subtler issues of power and dependency won't be resolved through licensing alone, and certainly not by compromising on basic software freedom for users.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why the scare quotes, the first freedom of both Open Source and Free Software is the right to run the software for any purpose . It's not some little unimportant detail. It's arguably the most important property of Open Source.
I argue that the natural winner-take-all dynamics of the marketplace are not beneficial to the the mission of free and open source software. In fact, having no safeguard against large organisations making money this way is actually hugely detrimental to the mission by enabling these companies to ensnare unsuspecting users in a web of both their own proprietary software as well as all that free and open source softwar…
The history of technology and markets show this just isn’t true on any significant timescale.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
“Free software” means copyleft. The free software foundation manages copyleft licenses. The term open source was explicitly coined to differentiate from the more restrictive free software / copyleft. All free software licenses are open source licenses. Not all open source licenses are free software licenses.
> “Free software” means copyleft. No, it doesn't. The FSF uses “Free Software” to refer to a broad class that is essentially identical to the OSI use of “Open Source.” The term the FSF uses for copyleft is “copyleft”, which is a subset of Free Software.
1) hasn't/doesn't publish a free software definition that describes copyleft as a precondition to free software
2) hasn't/doesn't claim in any of their non-normative commentary that the definition has that precondition
3) readily and regularly refers to projects published under permissive licenses like the BSD, MIT/X11, and Apache licenses as "free software", despite not being copyleft licenses
4) themselves publish/maintain/govern software projects that are licensed under permissive licenses like the aforementioned non-copyleft licenses
The claim that "'free software' means 'copyleft'" is a pernicious, bizarrely recurring but wildly misinformed claim that only shows up on message boards by people who can't ever have actually read primary sources that explain the positions of the organization they purport to describe, and have instead just, like, decided they understand the topic (through, I dunno, osmosis or something, I guess).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
edit: I thought this HN thread was about the Bear app never mind
Different Bear. https://bear.app/ Which you could have known by spending five seconds on https://lambdalpha.com , or actually reading your own link which calls Bear an "Apple Design Award winner notes app", which doesn't really sound like the Bear blog. Stop spreading rampant misinformation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's source available like this then it's clearly not a "community project"
If you look at the commit graph, it’s definitely not a community project.
As far as I understand it, the stance of the 'Open Source' crowd is that if Amazon can't make it one of their AWS offerings then it isn't true open source, and they'll get very upset at you if you claim it is. I'd like to see some recognition from this crowd of the "free-ride competition" problem as this author puts it. What Herman is doing is a service to us all, and we should find a term (better than 'source-availa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Free Software and Open Source have definitions that are both on their face and in practical application by the bodies responsible for each almost entirely identical. Neither is a subset of the other. If you are concerned about mandating users provide modifications by a similar license to the one they received material under, what you want is copyleft .
“Free software” means copyleft. The free software foundation manages copyleft licenses. The term open source was explicitly coined to differentiate from the more restrictive free software / copyleft. All free software licenses are open source licenses. Not all open source licenses are free software licenses.
Open-source never attempted to distinguish itself from free software in terms of licensing or content, and "free software" has always included permissive licenses.
You can find lots of free software licenses which are not copyleft listed on the FSF website, with links to longer commentaries on them. The FSF clearly identifies them as free software licenses, and always has.
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
this page is linked to from FSF.org here:
https://www.fsf.org/licensing/
Take a few minutes reading the publications of the organizations and movements you're misrepresenting. Take a look at the OSI's Open-Source definition as well.
I'm sad to see this. I supported Bear because it was open source. As that's no longer the case, I just canceled my membership. I would love to see this reversed and moved to AGPL instead.
Obviously the goal of Open Source licenses does not include making money. You might, or might not, but it's not a priority.
Equally your goal may be to only support Open Source projects. That's fine. For you removing support for this project makes sense.
Once a project reaches the stage of needing to create an income stream, Open Source licenses are no longer appropriate.
Yes, some developers are naive in thinking Open Source licenses protect their income stream. Yes some users are naive in thinking that projects will remain Open Source forever.
Source-available, or Shipped-with-source of whatever you want to call it is a proprietary license which is just fine. It's not Open Source, nor does it need to be.