[1] https://creativecommons.org/faq/#can-i-apply-a-creative-comm...
> Also, the CC0 Public Domain Dedication is GPL-compatible and acceptable for software. For details, see the relevant CC0 FAQ entry.
(I also consider anything that fits the Open Source Definition to be "open source" and differentiate things actually approved by the OSI as "OSI certified", which should in principle be a subset of "open source".)
This is not true. Recent licenses trying to protect the business built on the open source code are in general, open for use:
- Sentry: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21466967
- Elastic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25833781
I see these sorts of licenses becoming increasingly common in the future, which is why I think it's silly to continue excluding them from being called open source.
I do agree that licenses like this will become more common in the future, and that's why I think it's useful to have an identifying term for them rather than making "open-source" less precise to include them. Different words for different things is good, in my opinion.
And yet people are fighting tooth and nail to redefine open source to mean OSI approved licence instead of using OSI approved license to mean OSI approved license.
>To see why just change the thread title: What’s up with these new non-OSI approved licenses?
It's an article that you can have a reasonable debate about without stacking the deck against the people you're arguing against. Which is why the people who make money by stacking the deck are so dead set to redefine the word to mean exactly what makes them the most money.
If OSI wanted to provide the official definition for what is "open source" and what is not, they could have perhaps trade-marked their term "Open Source".
But "OSI approved license" has its own vagueness about it. What does it mean that OSI "approves" a license? Approves it for what? To be called "Open Source"? But then unless they have the trademark for the term Open Source, they shouldn't be the one to give approvals for people to call their software that.
This reminds me of the debates about whether something is true Agile, or merely wannabe-Agile. Words are just words. It is good to have precise definitions but those can be specific to a given context. It is a bit like let x = y + z. Is that the correct definition of x? No, but it is a VALID definition of it, assuming y and z are well-defined as well.
The people trying to redefine anything are those ignorant of the history here.
Free software was coined in the 80s. I wasn't there for that.
Open source was coined in the 90s because we didn't want people to think that software which let you see the code was free of charge.
Then when they sold out a bunch of tech bros from SV decided that they knew best and redefined open source to mean whatever made their valuations go to the moon. The plan did work as expected because dot com crash.
The people around the OSI have always been share croppers that have been trying to get paid for other peoples work.
Was it redefined? My impression is that it has always effectively been a synonym for free software, just not carrying the political leanings.
Also, while I'm sure it's unintentional, your backwards of "sharecropper" smells racist.(It actually means paying someone for the right to do you your own work, and was an attempted to recreate slavery after slavery was banned in USA).
I would argue that they prohibit far less use cases than they are open for.
In any case, how would you describe these licenses? I don't feel like "source available" is an accurate descriptor in this case.
Sure the SaaS server licenses are more or less open use with caveat, but why won't a process paralleling tivoization occur?
I wouldn't find it odd for a hardware vendor to release source code, "for review" without the rights to use it on any other hardware as some do for binaries.
In a way that could be worse than closed source as that is similar to the problem of suspicion of reading leaked source code, maybe you are tainted and can't actually write software licensable for competing hardware. Maybe you never read the code yet it will appear that way, but you shouldn't check.
Given the oddities of IP and copyright infringement, it is often the case that only the owner benefits from a process of publishing. I.e. what good is the disclosure of a modern patent?
It’s kind of like that thing where software vendors give cheap or free licenses to educational users in order to get them hooked and then charge whatever company they might work for an arm and a leg to keep using it.
> My personal term for this sort of "We're OK with little people using the software but we don't want any competition"
Large companies are free to use Sentry. There are Fortune 50 companies running Sentry at scale internally without paying us a cent. That's totally cool.
You're also free to compete with Sentry. You're not free to repackage Sentry for the purposes of competing with us. There are lots of competing error and performance monitoring products out there that do perfectly fine without it.
I should also note that many components of Sentry are distributed with OSI-approved licenses that you are free to use to compete with us. For example, our Symbolication service (https://github.com/getsentry/symbolicator) ships with an MIT license, and it's an important part of our business.
That seems like an obvious growth opportunity when investors need to see numbers go up
Aside, there seems to be confusion about what “relicensing” means. Even in this hypothetical scenario you’ve outlined, we can’t “relicense” already released software. Many users hosting Sentry internally are using years-old versions happily; they would continue to be able to do so. They could also choose to fork the last permissible version and maintain it themselves.
Personally, I think this scenario (relicensing such that self-hosted users could no longer do so) is incredibly unlikely. I don’t believe it would really do anything to grow the company.
A fundamental aspect of open source is that there is no limit to the number of businesses that can be built on it. If a single company wants a monopoly on building a business on the software, we have a term for that: proprietary software.
And this is the fundamental issue, can they build a strong company based on this software, it's potentially possible but that seem to think they can't be competitive hence the license moves.
It is legal, it was a good business move by amazon but it definitively sucked for those who had invested in building that software.
So yeah, in a way I can understand that now anyone risking their business in creating software or services based on those might be going, "yeah no thanks, you can't fork our work and sell it".
Specially when companies are gigantic and a 0.01% of their budget equates to the whole budget of the company who produced the original source. You can't really "not struggle" in the face of the competition.
I have to dig more into GPL licensing but anyway, there certainly needs to be some licenses that are not "f$#%% me any way you want" for people doing open source products.
I've literally no sympathy for ES whatsoever, they were either incompetent or playing games.
What ES invested and the size of AWS has literally nothing to do with the discussion, ES made a choice pure and simple. They are within their rights to make a new choice if they so choose.
Ethics don't come into play here and I also don't have any specific sympathy for ES, but I have sympathy for people and companies that provide open source software that others can read and tinker with.
I can like AWS because of providing me services I find useful. That doesn't mean that I have to like everything about them.
> What ES invested and the size of AWS has literally nothing to do with the discussion
Well, it does and doesn't. In a way it would be great to have open-source software be the default, but given that anybody with resources can simply take it and build a then non-open-source version of it and polish it or integrate into much higher leverage existing systems, it does pose some questions as towards what licensing open-source software should have in the first place and if it should be infecting or simply have multiple different clauses related to how it's being used.
But yeah, when playing a game make sure you know the rules and all.
Run the software under AGPL and dual license it under a closed or restricted usage license if a customer doesn't want to use the AGPL license.
Instead we have people electing to create restrictive licenses with varying degrees of "use the software however you like unless we don't like you or your business" baked into them.
The dual full free + restrictive license model has worked very well in the past for FOSS based companies. Let people who are fine contributing back to your project and/or open their project up use it however they please and let everyone who doesn't like those terms pay for it like standard commercial software instead.
If your business is just an extension of the underlying software (the source) and you don't want to open source your part of the work, then pay a commercial license.
If your business uses the software (the source) just as an ancillary part most probably you're ok to source back any improvements back and keep them open source (no need to pay). If it's ancillary and you need to keep them closed, then pay for licensing anyway.
The only thing I don't understand but seen many time mentioned is the "infecting" nature of the GPL licensing?
The reason for this is to prevent people from creating wrappers that allow them to profit off the licensed software without contributing back or open sourcing. The key thing to note is that you don't have to upstream changes. You only have to provide the source to users (and the license protections extend to them). This means you can still sell GPL and AGPL software but you do have to provide full usage permissions to the user once they've bought the product.
As a side note: I've always found it amusing that government contractors have traditionally been very afraid of (A)GPL despite being required to provide (A)GPL-esque usage permissions to the customer/government. Most of this I imagine is due to a fundamental misunderstanding that providing source to the user doesn't mean publicly make source available for everyone.
Now if you have an AGPL or GPL licensed dependency and you want to dual(+commercial) license your project, you have to work out a commercial license agreement with the dependency's maintainer. If a project has (A)GPL dependencies and doesn't have a commercial license but you'd like to use one, you'd have to work out commercial licenses with the project and all the dependencies (or have the project maintainer work said license out).
This infection effectively enforces users to either share their software or "pay" for all of it which is arguably a good thing for the health of the ecosystem as a whole. If (A)GPL+commercial licensure was standard practice, we likely wouldn't be seeing the [OpenSSL/xkcd-2347](https://xkcd.com/2347/) issue keep popping up time and again.
TLDR: The "infection" forces users/developers to either respect the "free" terms or pay for the full value of the software.
Just because the source is available to you doesn't mean it's open source though. There are many companies that have the source code to Windows, but I would never describe Windows as being open source. That where the pedanticism comes in.
I've seen people use "source available" (?) in these situations, but I don't think it really makes sense because a lot of the time the only thing holding it back from being OSI "Open Source" is that their license has not been recognized by OSI.