What’s up with these new not-open source licenses?

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by Robotbeat on Thursday March 18, 2021 @08:51PM (#26509188)

And companies releasing “open source” software which has hooks in it that put other companies in potential legal trouble (beyond their he usual GPL type stuff) are themselves co-opting the term for their own ends. It’s hiding behind “language flexibility” to use “open source” in this manner.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by EarlKing on Thursday March 18, 2021 @09:07PM (#26509261)

...or they're using that phrase exactly as it was intended before the OSI got their hands on it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by Robotbeat on Thursday March 18, 2021 @09:22PM (#26509354)

I haven't seen evidence of that.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by EarlKing on Friday March 19, 2021 @01:01AM (#26510276)

There's links to plenty of it over here[1] which I posted up-chat.

[1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:What’s up with these new not-open source licenses? by Robotbeat on Friday March 19, 2021 @02:17AM (#26510538)

Your link doesn’t support your claim. Most of those seem closer to the OSI definition (BSD is the first one, GPL, Linux, etc) and the ones that might contradict it are rarer.

The way most people have been using “open source” is a lot closer to OSI than these companies are claiming. It’s misleading to use a different definition nowadays. And I think that’s the actual intent. If it wasn’t, then they’d be perfectly fine with using another unambiguous term like “source available.” If there was a strong desire to be clear and not misleading, they’d use such a term.

[ Parent | on HN ]