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

Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

opensource.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 160 posts

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#81

Post by giantg2 »

pie_flavor wrote: post #58
valdiorn wrote: post #49

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.

The court decision directly declares this false. The fact that AGPL+Commons makes code source-available (the source code is publicly available) but not open-source ( https://opensource.org/osd ) is the false advertising claim in question. If you were to design a source-available nonfree product, and call it 'open source', this court would find you guilty of false advertising. Not that this should come as a surprise,…

"If you were to design a source-available nonfree product, and call it 'open source', this court would find you guilty of false advertising."

It's not really about any of that. If you read the court opinion, it's basically copyright protection infringement on the basis that someone copied a product and changed the licensing in violation of the original license. The false advertising claim is on the basis that the duplicate software is free and open source, because it can't be free and open source if the original license forbade that.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#83

Post by giantg2 »

teilo wrote: post #74
pie_flavor wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court decision directly declares this false. The fact that AGPL+Commons makes code source-available (the source code is publicly available) but not open-source ( https://opensource.org/osd ) is the false advertising claim in question. If you were to design a source-available nonfree product, and call it 'open source', this court would find you guilty of false advertising. Not that this should come as a surprise,…

No, that's not what the decision says. OSI is guilty of making claims that the court did not make, and they are adding needless confusion to the legal definitions of the terms "Open Source" and "Free". No court has ever ruled on a definitive meaning of "open source" that matches OSI's definition of the term. OSI is claiming that the term "open source" is what is false advertising. But both the trial and appellate cou…

Look at that, there's one other person in this post that knows what's really going on.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#84

Post by giantg2 »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #75
giantg2 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, I mean if you dedicate it or decide not to defend it.

It's really splitting hairs to say that dedicating it isn't a license. Especially because you need a fallback license in many countries. Deciding not to defend it means it's still copyright infringement to use the unlicensed code, and they could change their mind at any time.

True. I guess this entire comment thread isn't germane to the post topic given the root comment is a hypothetical that isn't actually related to court decision.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#85

Post by [deleted] »

joshuaissac wrote: post #72
pie_flavor wrote: post #68

This article doesn't really explain what happened, and the details it does give contradict each other. Here it is as I understand it: - the plaintiff's software was under the AGPL+Commons, which makes it non-open-source - the defendants copied the software, re-releasing it under bare AGPL, under the clause that says you can remove upstream restrictions - that clause is actually about licensees, and the plaintiff isn'…

> that clause actually says upstream licensee The AGPL does not use that wording, but the court chose to interpret it that way because the alternative interpretation that a licence could restrict how the original licensor can convey their work was deemed to incompatible with the principles of contract and copyright law.

[deleted]

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#86

Post by kube-system »

busterarm wrote: post #13
hn_version_0023 wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That part seemed like their own spin on the decision, to me. I agree with you: they shouldn’t control the term.

They determined the guidelines of what constitutes being Open Source. Absolutely they should control the term. Just look at all of the companies out there with "source-available" licenses masquerading as Open Source. Neo4j themselves here uses "Open Source" in all of their marketing materials and should be just as guilty as this fork of false advertising.

1. “Open source” as a term predates the OSI

2. There are organizations other than OSI which have their own opinions on what they consider a “valid” open source license.

3. Some licenses are functionally open source but not approved by OSI because of their limited use. Furthermore, public domain works aren’t licensed at all.

4. OSI has no trademark on “open source”.

OSI’s opinion is only as good as other people agree with it.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#87

Post by righttoolforjob »

Who is getting sued here? The post mentions Neo4j in the initial paragraph, but then it shifts to talking about someone who tried to promote their fork as open source.

Shouldn't Neo4j be sued as well for falsely claiming to be open source then?

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#88

Post by pie_flavor »

joshuaissac wrote: post #72
pie_flavor wrote: post #68

This article doesn't really explain what happened, and the details it does give contradict each other. Here it is as I understand it: - the plaintiff's software was under the AGPL+Commons, which makes it non-open-source - the defendants copied the software, re-releasing it under bare AGPL, under the clause that says you can remove upstream restrictions - that clause is actually about licensees, and the plaintiff isn'…

> that clause actually says upstream licensee The AGPL does not use that wording, but the court chose to interpret it that way because the alternative interpretation that a licence could restrict how the original licensor can convey their work was deemed to incompatible with the principles of contract and copyright law.

The 'you' in section 10 refers to the licensee, and section 7 is specifically about further restrictions as defined in section 10. It doesn't help that the AGPL didn't capitalize that phrase, but as the document defines it, conditions added by the copyright holder as opposed to licensees don't count as 'further restrictions'.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#89

Post by rectang »

cosydney wrote: post #3

Does anyone recommend some documentations to know all the licences vs open source? I'm thinking of launching one of our project in open source but don't want to end up in this kind or articles ^^

For people in your position, I like Van Lindberg's book, Intellectual Property and Open Source: A Practical Guide to Protecting Code.

https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/intellectual-property-a...

It will help you understand the relevant parts of the law (copyright, patent, trademark) as well as helping to differentiate between various types of Open Source licenses.

Re: Court finds calling stuff open source when it's not is false advertising

#90

Post by pie_flavor »

giantg2 wrote: post #81
pie_flavor wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The court decision directly declares this false. The fact that AGPL+Commons makes code source-available (the source code is publicly available) but not open-source ( https://opensource.org/osd ) is the false advertising claim in question. If you were to design a source-available nonfree product, and call it 'open source', this court would find you guilty of false advertising. Not that this should come as a surprise,…

"If you were to design a source-available nonfree product, and call it 'open source', this court would find you guilty of false advertising." It's not really about any of that. If you read the court opinion, it's basically copyright protection infringement on the basis that someone copied a product and changed the licensing in violation of the original license. The false advertising claim is on the basis that the dup…

The original license is AGPL with an added non-commercial clause. To say 'the original license forbade that', where 'that' is being FOSS, is to either agree with me, or to claim that the court is instead offering opinion on what constitutes 'free', which is five times as loaded as 'open source'.
Post reply on HN