Post AWpWOzQwtIXUImhraC by docum3nt@mastodon.ie
(DIR) More posts by docum3nt@mastodon.ie
(DIR) Post #AWoqwZzlmRu7B3KOJM by webmink@meshed.cloud
2023-06-18T14:54:21Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
"Open source software is software released under a license that — by community consensus — grants all rights necessary to use, improve, share and monetise the software in any way and for any purpose subject only to conditions that can be reasonably satisfied without negotiation with the licensors."https://the.webm.ink/defining-open-source#OpenSource #Policy@osi @EU_Commission @EC_OSPO
(DIR) Post #AWpEafRHG4JYacHLM0 by danb@fosstodon.org
2023-06-18T19:21:57Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@webmink That's a real good attempt!I feel the last 14 words, from "subject" onwards adds a lot of understanding complexity to the definition but I can't think of a better alternative.
(DIR) Post #AWpHzVnaXLJZnFFjyi by edavies@functional.cafe
2023-06-18T20:00:02Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@webmink Do you regard software released under the GPL to be open source by that definition?Would taking a few source files from a work, modifying them, then using them in a closed source program be required to be allowed for licences to meet your definition? If not, why not? Would the GPL allow that?
(DIR) Post #AWpNaIzNcrGUY98Fwe by webmink@meshed.cloud
2023-06-18T21:02:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edavies Yes, definitely open source. I'm agnostic about your second question, see https://webmink.com/essays/causality/
(DIR) Post #AWpNokOUX093bClRqK by webmink@meshed.cloud
2023-06-18T21:03:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@danb That bit is essential to stop the patent games being attempted by SEP advocates at standards groups. I think it's as short as it can be but I am open to improvements.
(DIR) Post #AWpQ9HSDWYavpiQSFU by edavies@functional.cafe
2023-06-18T21:31:30Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@webmink Like many I have an preference on GPL vs BSD but I deliberately posed my questions to be neutral on this as I don't think my preference is relevant.My point is that I think your definition excludes the GPL in that the GPL prohibits taking part (or all) of a so-licensed piece of software and incorporating it in a closed source program and therefore excludes one of the ways covered by “…to use, improve, share and monetise the software in any way…“.
(DIR) Post #AWpQkoT3k8vmwBiU88 by webmink@meshed.cloud
2023-06-18T21:38:29Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@edavies I don't think it does - there are plenty of examples of closed software on systems anchored by GPL software (Android for example). It just involves more backflips. It's a condition of the license (requiring compliance or avoidance) rather than a restriction (requiring negotiation and an additional agreement).But that has indeed been a long-running line of disagreement within the community of communities.
(DIR) Post #AWpWOzQwtIXUImhraC by docum3nt@mastodon.ie
2023-06-18T22:41:32Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@webmink @osi @EU_Commission @EC_OSPO I've been looking for a 1–sentence summary of Open Source licences, and I'd like to start working with this one if I may.
(DIR) Post #AWpX2qNA00jXmawEEq by webmink@meshed.cloud
2023-06-18T22:48:53Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@docum3nt Please do! Let me know where it doesn't fit your needs.@osi @EU_Commission @EC_OSPO
(DIR) Post #AWqyBdUU9elMMCk1QW by docum3nt@mastodon.ie
2023-06-19T15:27:12Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@webmink @osi @EU_Commission @EC_OSPO Very little to change, just trying to decide if there is any one aspect of OS licenses which needs mentioning, in what is otherwise a general explanation. For example, claims of ownership: with the GFDL I have been adding "You may copy and distribute this document in any form provided you acknowledge this source and the individual (in the case of a contribution), and don't try to pretend you or someone other than the author wrote it."
(DIR) Post #AWr4SPerR9Em6Uyf4a by webmink@meshed.cloud
2023-06-19T16:37:58Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@docum3nt That would be a "condition that can be reasonably satisfied without negotiation with the licensors" so is covered, but if the legislation was about claiming ownership of works it mught need to be emphasized.@osi @EU_Commission @EC_OSPO
(DIR) Post #AWrENPPfv3GjRD7wAq by docum3nt@mastodon.ie
2023-06-19T18:28:56Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@webmink @osi @EU_Commission @EC_OSPO Yes, it's certainly such a condition and shouldn't need isolating, but in talking to people working on OS software of their own, loss of identity as the creator seems to rank very high. I need to revisit this.
(DIR) Post #AWrKQxW8B1NVntDrrk by webmink@meshed.cloud
2023-06-19T19:36:35Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@docum3nt One consideration is that a recital defining a term (which is the target for this definition) does not usually go on to describe use - that's for the articles. All OSI-approved licenses anticipate copyright notices (and thus authorship) being preserved so this definition provides scope for a later article to emphasize identification of authorship.@osi @EU_Commission @EC_OSPO