Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source

danb.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source

#41

Post by mcherm »

CivBase wrote: post #29

IMO this is a losing battle. Regardless of good intentions, the term "open source" is simply not descriptive enough to carry connotations about licensing. To the layman all it means is that the source is open (accessible to the public). IMO the OSI would be better off coming up with a more clear term and popularizing that rather than trying to convince everyone that their restrictive definition of "open source" is th…

> To the layman all it means is that the source is open (accessible to the public).

I disagree. To the layman I think "open source" means "I can use it for free". Which in this case may not be true depending on your employer and whether this is a good revenue year or not.

I think OSI's definition is well thought out, widely understood, and regularly referenced. We should continue using it.

Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source

#42

Post by evanelias »

neilv wrote: post #20
byyll wrote: post #15

Again with the pointless discussion about what the "widely regarded definition of open source" is. The source is there. That's it.

The term "open source" was coined for a specific meaning, and codified. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source Destroying the meaning of words is an activity for Orwellian villains.

Although OSI claims that they coined the term, there's irrefutable proof that the term was already in-use well before that. Originally, "open source" just meant "source available": https://dieter.plaetinck.be/posts/open-source-undefined-part...

Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source

#43

Post by insane_dreamer »

byyll wrote: post #15

Again with the pointless discussion about what the "widely regarded definition of open source" is. The source is there. That's it.

> That's it.

No, that's not it. What you can do with the source code is just as important as the source code being available.

Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source

#44

Post by CivBase »

mcherm wrote: post #41
CivBase wrote: post #29

IMO this is a losing battle. Regardless of good intentions, the term "open source" is simply not descriptive enough to carry connotations about licensing. To the layman all it means is that the source is open (accessible to the public). IMO the OSI would be better off coming up with a more clear term and popularizing that rather than trying to convince everyone that their restrictive definition of "open source" is th…

> To the layman all it means is that the source is open (accessible to the public). I disagree. To the layman I think "open source" means "I can use it for free". Which in this case may not be true depending on your employer and whether this is a good revenue year or not. I think OSI's definition is well thought out, widely understood, and regularly referenced. We should continue using it.

> I think OSI's definition is well thought out, widely understood, and regularly referenced

I agree it is well thought out, but I strongly disagree that it is widely understood and regularly referenced. By the kind of folks who frequent HN maybe, but not by the industry at large - and definitely not by most people outside the industry.

Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source

#45

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

byyll wrote: post #15

Again with the pointless discussion about what the "widely regarded definition of open source" is. The source is there. That's it.

> The source is there. That's it.

No, that's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source

#46

Post by ZeroTalent »

Tomte wrote: post #27
ssddanbrown wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Additionally, this submission's title was changed from "Gumroad Did Not Become Open Source Today" to "Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source"

For whatever reason. It was the original title and is descriptive. Are the mods having a bad day?

Maybe they bought SPY calls yesterday

Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source

#47

Post by ZeroTalent »

ssddanbrown wrote: post #28
redkoala wrote: post #21

Open source licenses as they exist today aren’t sustainable to run a business. We’ve seen with the cloud providers how easy it is to launch a competitor if you don’t have protective licensing. Gumroad’s licensing is still small business friendly and protects another Gumroad clone from being launched.

I would argue it is possible to run a business and be sustainable on open source, it's just harder and is not so compatible with the growth that many want. I don't have an issue with this kind of license being used where open source does not suit, but I don't think we should change/widen the definition of "open source" to suit the sustainability needs of those that open source isn't compatible with, at the impact of…

Can you name some?

Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source

#49

Post by ssddanbrown »

ZeroTalent wrote: post #47
ssddanbrown wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue it is possible to run a business and be sustainable on open source, it's just harder and is not so compatible with the growth that many want. I don't have an issue with this kind of license being used where open source does not suit, but I don't think we should change/widen the definition of "open source" to suit the sustainability needs of those that open source isn't compatible with, at the impact of…

Can you name some?

I've been sustaining myself for a couple of years now on my open source project (BookStack). Still going in a positive direction.

Other than that, some that come to mind: Proxmox, Opnsense, SnipeIT, GitLab, Canonical, Codeweavers/wine, Plausible, Home-assistant/open-home-foundation/NabuCasa, FreeBSD Foundation, Laravel, Blender, Godot.

Within there is a whole mix of business plans, some offer hardware, some are open core, some offer related paid services, some offer hosting, some offer support etc...

Re: Gumroad’s license wouldn’t meet the widely regarded definition of open source

#50

Post by Tomte »

tomhow wrote: post #35
ssddanbrown wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure, maybe they don't want to take a hard stance on the issue either way (to indicate how open source is defined on HN). Dang has been receptive to input and updated (what I believed to be) misrepresenting "open source" titles in the past though. This post also seemed to be thrown off the front page for some reason.

It's customary on HN to avoid a repetition of a topic that's already being actively discussed. The original post is still on the front page and the licensing issue is being heavily discussed there. I've linked to your post from that thread.

Sure, but the title change is strange. I'd even say changing the meaning makes it outrage bait in the first place, because now HN has taken a stance, where before it was just the article author's opinion.
Post reply on HN