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

'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

dri.es

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 172 posts

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#81

Post by bloppe »

Incipient wrote: post #25

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).

Most source-available licenses that I've encountered have no paid license requirements for users. They only require a paid license if you want to sell the product commercially. Normally, you're still allowed to use the software as a piece of a larger commercial product, as long as it does not compete with the original author, or "substantially reproduce the functionality" of the source-available bits, depending on the exact language.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#82

Post by A1kmm »

theanonymousone wrote: post #68
kemitchell wrote: post #65

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 :)

If the intent is to stop it being used for a business, that's inherently at odds with part of the OSI's definition: "The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research".

Now technically maybe it could meet the OSD if it required a royalty for hosting the software as a SaaS product, instead of banning that - since it allows "free redistribution", and passes on the same right to anyone receiving it (it is defined in terms of prohibitions on what the licence can restrict, and there is no restriction on charging a set amount for use unless that requires executing a separate licence agreement).

Now arguably this is a deficiency in the OSD. But I imagine if you tried to exploit that, they might just update the definition and/or decline to list your licence.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#83

Post by eudoxus »

koolala wrote: post #71
jrowen wrote: post #6

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.

These terms are designed to trick people exactly like you. "Source available" means you can sue anyone that shares a modification of your code for any reason you want to make up.

I'm going to respond here assuming you are being genuine and not facetious or sarcastic (even though I am hoping you were).

"Source available" doesn't in any way mean "you can sue anyone that uses your code for any reason...". The irony of highlighting the trickery of these terms then you yourself perpetuating wrong definitions is... amusing.

"Source available" is by definition ill-defined, in the sense that "open source" is defined. There is no trademark, stewarding body, or legal entity behind "Source available". It only exists in relation to OSI defined "open source".

Which is to say, it is defined as code that does not fit the "Open Source Definition (OSD)" yet its source code is viewable. Maybe its modifiable, maybe its free to use, but maybe its neither. Thats all anyone can factually attribute to the definition of "Source available". Nothing about "suing ... for any reason".

Again, hoping you were making your comment in good fun, otherwise it doesn't look too good for you.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#84

Post by NiloCK »

Again and forever:

These fights stem from usage of a proprietary definition of Open Source (the OSI's). Obviously the definition doesn't resonate with DHH, and he uses the words 'open' and 'source' colloquially. Open, as in a book or a window, source, as in the thing that gets compiled into bits and bobs that run on computers. You wouldn't jump on someone's "open letter" to city hall because of a lack of freedom to fork it.

This could stop if people capitalized their reference to Open Source, which is standard English treatment of proper nouns. Unlikely to happen though, because insisting that "my definitions are your definitions" seems to be a primal tribal instinct for humans.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#85

Post by koolala »

eudoxus wrote: post #83
koolala wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These terms are designed to trick people exactly like you. "Source available" means you can sue anyone that shares a modification of your code for any reason you want to make up.

I'm going to respond here assuming you are being genuine and not facetious or sarcastic (even though I am hoping you were). "Source available" doesn't in any way mean "you can sue anyone that uses your code for any reason...". The irony of highlighting the trickery of these terms then you yourself perpetuating wrong definitions is... amusing. "Source available" is by definition ill-defined, in the sense that "open so…

I edited it to be more specific while you were typing that.

The entire point of copyright is a legal mechanism to sue people. "Source-available" at a minimum is someone sharing their code under their own copyright and terms of use.

Yes the term is designed to trick outsiders. Most people don't even know that code is copyrighted by default when it is posted publicly and freely on the internet without a © symbol.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#86

Post by bullfightonmars »

jillesvangurp wrote: post #67

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…

In the case of Fizzy, the app that 37signals has made “source available”, the real motivation for publishing is form of advertising for Ruby on Rails.

DHH is on a mission to show that you can write great software with way less bullshit than is in vogue.

This code base is sparkling in its design. No build frontend, server side rendered templates, minimal js used primarily to drive interactivity, extremely simple models, jobs, and controllers.

It has < 3000 lines of js with incredibly rich interaction design, when was the last time you saw that?

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#87

Post by jillesvangurp »

bloppe wrote: post #78
jillesvangurp wrote: post #67

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…

The BUSL license requires shifting to an open-source license no later than 4 years after publication. I'd be happy to contribute to a BUSL-licensed project knowing my contributions will shift to an MIT license within 4 years. And the original authors don't have to worry as much about Amazon eating their lunch.

Good for you; you seem like a trusting person. I'd recommend against spending your time on that. Or at least try to get paid for it.

I tend walk away from anything with a shared source license. I don't invest my time in it. I don't finish reading the README. It's an instant red flag.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#88

Post by bloppe »

anon-3988 wrote: post #69

Why haven't anyone randomly generate a bunch of code of various kinds, use LLM to create some summary of it and dump them to github with a restrictive license? The patent office isn't here to enforce anything.

I'm curious as to where this is going. What happens next?

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#89

Post by RossBencina »

cortesoft wrote: post #11
RossBencina wrote: post #2

Interesting. The post is about whether a license prohibiting SaaS competitors is "open source" and whether it might work out as a good way to ensure project sustainability. In this context "source available" means that you have the source code but you can't use it to compete with the project owner. [Kinda puts Omarchy in a different light don't you think?] There is another, I think different, form of "source availabl…

How easy do you have to make it to contribute to be considered “open source”. Obviously, no project accepts every single pull request. Where is the line between “open source” and “no open source” in your definition?

The line is where I find and fix a bug and upstream is behind a curtain.

Re: 'Source available' is not open source, and that's okay

#90

Post by sceptic123 »

jrowen wrote: post #6

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.

Yes, it's a spirit vs. letter argument isn't it? Or _Open Source_ and _open source_.
Post reply on HN