65
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Apr 2024
65 points (71.5% liked)
Open Source
31291 readers
556 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Why wouldn't it be opensource. It's right there in the name: the source is open.
You not being able to freely redistribute it means it a restrictive license, but it's opensource. I can look at it, get inspired by the solution, and write another one or a similar one and put another license on it. And if I don't care about the license, it can just be copied and redistributed π€·
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
@onlinepersona π€¦ββοΈ ok, that explains everything...
If you think copyright is great, good for you π
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
The license you're attaching to your comments uses copyright to restrict commercial use. Are you okay with any company ignoring your license because you've posted it in the open?
The term source-available is exactly what you should be using instead of open-source, as the latter has been defined differently for decades.
The only instances I've seen people using the term open-source literally has been companies who wanted to benefit from positive connotations of open-source, while using a commercial source-available license which restricts many freedoms.
Another comment: https://linkage.ds8.zone/comment/1105950
You're not making much of an argument against me. I wish there were no copyright, no patents, no closed-source, no "trade secrets", none of that. But I live in the real world, not some hedonistic, communist, kopimist fantasy.
Copyright exists in this world and if it can maybe bring trouble to one org reaping the benefits of the commons without giving back, I'll gladly use it. Orgs treat copyright like bumberstickers and regularly ignore that (meaning anything) which has the low chance of being enforced or have significant monetary repercussions, so I do the same.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
Yes, I've no problem with your position on copyright and many institutions do many bad things. My issue js with misuse of terms with a fixed meaning, i.e. open-source. Having different people use a single term in multiple ways makes it so much more difficult to understand each other and enables bad actors to rile people up against each other.
A tame example is "stable" Linux distros, where "stable"can mean package versions stay the same (besides bug fixes), and then people come and say their Arch Linux never broke, so it too is "stable".
In the context of criticism of how copyright works I understand the above sentence, but using a well understood term differently still annoys me enough to write lengthy comments.
PS: I do hope lemmy implements a way to add copyright notices to comments like it allows for setting the language of posts. It could be implemented in a less noisy way. People who don't care about a license ignore it anyway, while people who do care would likely find it without much trouble.
I see π€ Yeah, I'm not sure where I stand on that. On one hand, language evolves, on the other there's "technically correct". Maybe it irks me that calling projects like Redis "source-available" puts it in the same category as projects that just publish their code with a "no copy, no derivative" license. To me, those are nowhere near the same.
Maybe there's another term out there?
.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0I understand what you mean. With Redis and many other database/cloud companies switching to source-available licenses, maybe the term source-available doesn't have to have such negative connotations. Open-source is also divided in permissive and copyleft licenses (e.g. BSD and GPL), both have big implications on how it can be used.
Redis and others see themselves forced to switch to a more restrictive license because of the big cloud providers, who sell services for others software, without contributing back. This change is not good, but it might be necessary. Just like GPL is more restrictive than MIT, but it's necessary to force some company to actually give back instead of only taking.
I personally don't really dislike licenses which allow for the necessary freedoms of open-source after one or two years. It's a compromise but secures the longevity of software beyond a companies success. It's way better than proprietary code.
In a sense, forcing a commercial vendor to "contribute back monetarily" is a form of restriction π€ Not sure if forcing some other kind of contribution would be better, similar to how GPL forces licensing...
Anyway, thanks for sharing your point of view.
CC BY-NC-SA 4.0
@onlinepersona Please note, by adding the CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 to your comments, you are executing your copyright. Do *you* think copyright is good for you?