It might seem overly pedantic, but it can be quite important since many companies try to blur the lines of what open source is for their own benefit. If interested, I go into a little more detail on this here: https://danb.me/blog/posts/why-open-source-term-is-important...
You should be able to share source, allow individuals to use and modify your work and build a community around that work without worrying that same work will be co-opted by an entity seeking to undermine the effort you and your community have done for years, by slapping a different name on it and hosting it, competing directly against you with your own work as a business.
I'm fine if "Open Source" can't be used to describe these projects which are working with imperfect situations and looking to protect themselves while still providing their software with generally good intentions, but by the same token I then hope the software community will come up with a new good name for these type of projects, it becomes the common name, and the dogmatic definition of "Open Source" fades into the relative obscurity I think it deserves from being so divorced from reality.
The project in question is a CLI tool to a cloud platform that wraps an open source project (Kafka), complete with a page advertising why to use the wrapped software instead of the open-source version.
Its great that this person can work on a project, and share the source, but if anything, they're literally the ones doing the undermining of a community by re-branding existing OS Software. There's no community to form, no reason to expect anyone to contribute. The only reason anyone would want to modify this codebase is to interact with the centralized service through a different way.
"Source available" is a perfectly valid state, and describes a codebase like this which you can view, and even edit locally. "Open Source" is a term used for years to describe certain freedoms regarding software that has led to the abilities of many software users to modify and use software for whatever purpose they like, like the company in question using Kafka. Using an open-source codebase to make money is not undermining the project, its explicitly allowed in the license. We're all so much better off because open source projects, like Kafka, don't have these controlling and self-serving license.
Open Source is a functional definition that served us for 25 years. E.g. if software is Open Source, it can be included in a Linux distribution. Most distributions do not accept software that is incompatible with the Open Source definition. Diluting the term open source makes it more difficult to talk about a certain class of software licenses.
And why dilute the term if we have the perfect alternative term source available?
I don't think most major Open Source projects in the last 10 years have even once considered,
'E.g. if software is Open Source, it can be included in a Linux distribution.'
That is exactly what I mean by "out of touch".
If I had to guess the primary motivator for being Open Source, are the communal and moral aspects of it.
Edit: I see you edited that part out.
("Open Source" itself isn't a trademark, but the OSI bits are, so I removed it to avoid confusion.)
(There's no indication that the legal construction of a trademark is "going the way of the bandaid", or that bandaids are "going the way of the bandaid" for that matter.)
"Do whatever you want as long as you keep it Free Software" vs "do whatever you want as long as we believe you are not taking customers for us"
As usual, RMS was right, and I recommend reading the Free Software vs Open Source essay, unfortunately both names make it easy to misinterpret their respective fundamental idea (Free can and is usually interpreted as "gratis", and open as available/published/shared)
> It's a different restriction.
AGPL doesn't impose restrictions. It provides guarantees (that modified versions will remain AGPL and therefore open source for everybody).
> AGPL lets you do anything as long as it is just as Free (as in freedom)
By the very definition of open source software, you can do pretty much what you want, for your own usage. If you want to distribute (e.g. provide a service) with a modified version, then you need to guarantee that modified version retains the right that the original version granted.
Let me do the same for the quasi "open source" licenses:
Elastic license doesn't impose restrictions. It provides guarantees (that modified versions will not take business from you).
The only way you guarantee something, is by restricting something else. AGPL restricts distribution.
It does. It explicitly forbids usage. FOSS doesn't impose any restrictions on usage.
Fundamentally different things. I encourage you to review the four freedoms of Free Software [1] and see how AGPLv3 provide them all while Elastic License does not.
It does impose restrictions on distribution (which is one kind of usage) which was my point.
I'm fully aware of the four freedoms, I'm fully aware that elastic is not compliant. I'm fully aware that elastic is not open source by OSD, nor Free as per FSF. I was just stating that both impose restrictions, they are just of a different kind. I'm not advocating for elastic (i do not like non-free licenses), please do not misunderstand.
>> Elastic license doesn't impose restrictions. > It does. It explicitly forbids usage.
Please read that statement in its context. I was just doing the same thing you did. Swapping restrictions for guarantees. There is no such thing as a guarantee without restring something.
It does not restrict distribution, instead of restricts the ability to limit/restrict distribution. Quite a significant difference.
Also, fundamentally, one (AGPL) is putting the freedoms of the code and its users over those of the authors whereas the other (ELv2) puts the freedoms and interests of its authoring business over the freedom of the code and it's users.
semantics. Saying i cannot distribute something without providing the same freedoms given to me is still restricting what/how I distribute.
> Also, fundamentally, one (AGPL) is putting the freedoms of the code and its users over those of the authors whereas the other (ELv2) puts the freedoms and interests of its authoring business over the freedom of the code and it's users.
Yes. I fully agree. It's not like I haven't said something similar right but it's just discussing semantics at this point. So I'll stop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34530039
I despise licenses like Elastic's and wished SaaS would just use AGPL.
If a project wants to do something different, and develop an "open project" under some terms that aren't open source, they are free to do so, but they shouldn't call it something it's not.
I work on an open source project that meets your definition of open source, and I think I would refer to this project as open source. If you want to exclude licenses with any restrictions to use from your terminology you should come up with a clearer phrase, such as “unrestricted source”
Source available is more inaccurate, as a significant proportion of users will be able to use this software exactly as they would any other open source project, so for them the terms are functionally equivalent.
So, you’re of course welcome to advocate against using the term, but this weird attitude that it’s actually “wrong” is just nonsense. Neither you nor the OSI decide how people use language.
> "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "who is to be master - that's all."
- Through the Looking-Glass, slightly adjusted.
The whole goal of calling it "open source" is to take advantage of the positive connotations associated with the term. But the positive connotations come from software published under the dogma, and are inseparable from it.
(You can see the same twists and turns in Elastic's FAQ, where they desperately try to twist language so that "open" and "source" are as close together as possible without outright making contact. Guess nobody told them they can just use the word under their own definition, or as the rest of the world calls it, "lie".)
Either way, this is one of those age old debates about descriptive vs prescriptive language that will have absolutely no impact whatsoever. People will continue to post things they call open source that you disagree are open source, and you will continue to moan about it.
Language evolves.
The orthodox view on open source is a useful and broadly understood shorthand for a certain enumeration of rights, the withholding of those rights disproportionately serves a certain group of interests at the expense of others, and disregarding these problems and using the terminology incorrectly in spite of them is willfully dishonest.
Just because pepsi tastes like coca cola, doesn't make it coca cola.
Open source/free software places no restrictions on use/modification/distribution, end of story. With the sole exception of copyleft, which disallows you to distribute & withhold source, i.e. stopping you from depriving others of the very freedom that you benefitted from.
This places restrictions on use. Ergo it is not open source. Attempting to muddy the waters by using hand-wavey "you get most of your freedom!" type talk just muddies the waters and is precisely why the term got trademarked and why a definition exists. And it really is not hard to understand.
If people use it in this context, it means this thing. And they do, so it does.
to them, it means that thing to them
The only reason a project would even use the label Open Source is to reap the benefits that they get when people associate it with an ideology. Using such a term for virtue points, then turning around and saying "well, you know what, I have my own definition of Open Source" is just blatant grifting.
Your whole argument boils down to "we can and we will hijack the words for our own benefit", but if you succeed, you'll make Open Source less trustworthy in the public opinion, therefore shooting yourself in the foot.
Cool your own use of language, I don’t think it’s at all appropriate or within HN guidelines.
People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly?
I'll cool my own language when you stop presenting your reductionist Philosophy 101 "it's just words bro" arguments without doing any further analysis. It's just words bro so why do you care that I said I had sex with your mother last night? Maybe I meant it as a compliment!
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
People are using the word differently, and the community is telling them to stop using the words differently because it's misleading. What exactly are you arguing, that community should not do that? That, you know, the open source community should not tell people to stop using the term "open source" incorrectly?
But, no, I’ve quite clearly stated you can argue they shouldn’t use that definition. But you cannot credibly say that their usage is wrong if they are successfully communicating with others using that definition.
The word will change usage, or it won’t, and neither of us will probably have any say over it.
You can use your words in whatever way you want with whatever people you want, but can't deliberately ignore the widely-adopted definitions because "language changes" and claim everyone else is wrong and your microcosmos is right. Wake me up when language actually changes (i.e. when the majority adopts the new definition) and then we'll talk.
There’s literal dictionaries that disagree with you, so plenty of credibility to the alternative meanings.
I certainly do not recognise any charity’s right to define a word, so it is not official to me - or, apparently, to the OED or Wikipedia, and I would bet most other dictionaries and people.
Most people in the open source community recognize OSI definition as authoritative. "Muh assumption" - if you want data, look at the comment section in this article, most people disagree with you. You may have your microcosms of people who don't know/don't care about history of open source/free software, but your ignorance doesn't grant you any authority over language, either.
Use the language any way you want, but stop throwing tantrums when people rightfully tell you that you're using it wrong.
To use your example, it might be that murder evolved from meaning “a crime has been committed” to meaning a specific crime. Which, um, is exactly what happened.
The definition of open source is the same. It's not a random thing, it has specific elements which make up the definition. You may not like or agree with those elements, but then it's probably better that you go off and a) define something else for your purposes b) ignore the definition and be subject to legal redress if you contravene the definition.
One useful place to start with the definition (and there are, of course, many specific types of licenses, some of which are more restrictive than others) is https://opensource.org/osd
Secondly, good luck convincing everyone they “need to think about how they use words”
Thirdly, “legal redress”!?
>> 'legal redress'. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source_license_litigation
Words are fuzzy, most people don’t look at dictionaries, let alone OSI or FSF definitions. A word changing usage often just indicates the meaning was never as precise as you thought, the distinction just hadn’t yet mattered.
Your argument is roughly equivalent to this one: "I can call this random cereal Cheerios, because language evolves and neither you nor General Mills decides how people use language."
[0] https://www.abajournal.com/news/article/google_retains_its_t...
I then mentioned loss of trademark protection to further evidence that such words change meaning.
“Cheerios” is a made-up product name, and without knowing the definition of it, one couldn’t tell what it means. (I had to look it up, in fact.) In contrast, “open” and “source” are generic words, and in combination they can be used and understood without knowing any of the FOSS history.
That’s actually how I was introduced to the term: I always understood “open source” to just literally mean “the source code is openly accessible” – no more, no less. Even after having learned about the FOSS aspect later on, I continued to interpret “open source” in that literal sense.
Since this debate is a bit … heated, let me add that I’m not interested in making any general claims with my statement – I’m rather sharing my own perception to contribute a data point to how language can be used and understood differently, depending on where people come from.
“Open source” can be legitimately used as generic term, and as such one doesn’t need any definition at all to use the term in its colloquial sense.
Imagine someone were to arbitrarily define the term “free lunch” to mean something very specific, instead of the naive interpretation of “a meal at noon that you don’t have to pay for”. Only because they’d claim and publish their definition doesn’t make it universal from then on, regardless of whether the combination of those words had been used somewhere else before.
If you think of patent law, for example, it’s not for nothing that you can’t claim a trademark on generic terms. The reasoning behind that stems from the very same problem.
I agree with you that it probably would have been better if the FOSS movement had established a more specific term for what they meant. (Like: “FOSS”, for example.) But – to put it bluntly – that’s a home-made problem on behalf of the FOSS movement, and not mine.
Nobody used the term "open source" before it was deliberately invented. There was plenty of software in the 80s and 90s that we could retroactively call "open source," but nobody used that phrase at the time. The phrase "open source" was specifically created in 1998 because the term then in common use, "free software," was too generic and people were confused about what it meant. So a new term was created for the express purpose to have a term with no prior meaning so that a specific meaning could be assigned to it.
You seem to think that because "open source" is a phrase you see a lot, it's a generic phrase that was always used informally and grew out of natural language. But that's not the case. It's a term of art that was artificially created with a specific meaning.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. That means being more careful to "edit out swipes", as the guidelines put it.
I would assert/guess/think that there are more developers who have started in the last 10-15 years who use the term for its colloquial meaning than there were developers in the entirety of the field in the preceding 50 years. Just from a numbers perspective, if I'm right, the colloquialism is going to win out.
* view, download and modify the source code?
* distribute the code as part of another project?
* distribute modified versions of the code?
* do whatever I like with it?
Arguing that unless you meet the OSI definition, you can’t call yourself open source is a little like saying you can’t call a peanut a nut: it all depends on the context of the conversation. At the OSI annual conference, sure this isn’t open source. On a Show HN I’m fine with it being open source.
That literally is the point of open source: that it's not reliant on a single vendor. That's what open source was created for, and that's a big part of why it's thrived.
It's fine to create other structures, but as many have pointed out here, those other structures aren't open source. There are a lot of licenses that allow access to source code (very common in enterprise licenses) but have restrictions on what you can do with that source code.
The ability to fork was always a core value of Open Source. Especially if there was a community around a project that invested lots of energy into it - and then drama comes. Without forking it means it will always be dependant on the creator. Not the spirit I would like ot get into myself and I also don't like to see those 2 concepts mixed up.
If source is publicly available, it is open source. Plain and simple; regardless of your legal ability to copy or modify.
Definitions from Oxford Languages
open-source
denoting software for which the original source code is made freely available and may be redistributed and modified.
Emphasis on "may be redistributed and modified"
Very few pieces of software are attempting to propagate those non-open licenses; far more software is just using Open Source licenses.
If you want to call it "open source", use an Open Source license. If you don't, please use terms like "making the source available" or similar. (But please, consider just making it Open Source.)
I think it's valuable for old source available code to not bitrot away when the value of it to the company decreases.
Open Source software provides certain clear guarantees to the users of that software. Even small changes to these guarantees probably render the software not open source.
This is not pedantic rhetoric, there are clear reasons why open source software should be clearly told apart from proprietary (including source available): given the OSS guarantees, potential users of a given software may make usage / no usage decisions without further due diligence. If those guarantees are modified, due diligence and risk studies may be needed, specially for companies (what if we're not a competitor today but tomorrow we want to? what do you call competitor? etc).
Open Source exists for a reason, which is to provide a firm ground on those who are good with the guarantees it provides.
Please don't try to blur the line.
[1]: https://www.confluent.io/confluent-community-license-faq/