[HN Gopher] Software licenses masquerading as open source
___________________________________________________________________
Software licenses masquerading as open source
Author : andy99
Score : 48 points
Date : 2023-06-01 18:42 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (marble.onl)
(TXT) w3m dump (marble.onl)
| 2h wrote:
| I often use non commercial license:
|
| https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0/
|
| And without fail, people will howl ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE. They
| ignore that the code is on GitHub, and as long as you're not
| trying to make money with it, then do whatever you want with it.
| I don't like the idea of companies getting code for free and
| giving nothing back. I do like to support people who want my
| software for personal use.
| candiddevmike wrote:
| How do you see yourself enforcing that license?
| [deleted]
| 0x0000000 wrote:
| So license it AGPL if you're worried about them giving back.
| Trust me, AGPL alone will almost totally discourage commercial
| use, and then your software will actually be open source, not
| just source available.
| scj wrote:
| https://polyformproject.org/what-is-polyform/
|
| "PolyForm is not... Open source or free software."
| jraph wrote:
| > If you make any written claim that the software infringes or
| contributes to infringement of any patent, your patent license
| for the software granted under these terms ends immediately.
|
| This seems quite abusive. If I notice that using your software
| put people at risk of infringing some patent, I should be free
| to warn people about it.
|
| Usually patent clauses are revoked when the user sues the
| author over patent infringement and this is arguably already
| bad (though I have no sympathy for patents, one could argue
| that it's fair game).
|
| But this clause is quite nasty.
| jraph wrote:
| That's because there are legitimate commercial uses. I'm sure
| you could find some cases that you would agree with. For
| instance would you disagree with your baker who does not make
| an insane amount of money to use your software? or some group
| of people paid to work towards a cause close to your heart? NC
| makes your software far less useful and may have unintended
| consequences. Free software is also a means for the human
| civilization to build public commons cooperatively and NC
| prevents that a bit. Many desirable and useful things are made
| in a commercial setting. Unfortunately, people need money to
| live. Non commercial stuff can only happen in the time that
| remains.
|
| Even in this time left: I'm in a choir that does not make any
| profit. Can we use your NC software even if we pay our director
| or if we make people coming to our concerts pay? In doubt I
| would not.
|
| You could make your code open source copyleft (so people cannot
| lock you out by building closed software from your code), and
| distribute binaries with a more restrictive license that people
| who need to use them commercially need to pay. As such you have
| your free software, people with commercial needs give back by
| paying you and people with non commercial needs can use your
| software for free. People with commercial needs could compile
| your software from source but probably won't and probably be
| happy to pay you a few bucks.
|
| I work for a software company that develops an open source wiki
| enginr (XWiki) and also sell paid GPL'd extension. People
| actually pay. It helps founding further developments on the
| wiki engine and the extensions. See also premium WordPress
| extensions, or open source apps on the Play Store that are
| downloadable for a few bucks. As a dev, it's gratifying and
| your users' liberties are respected. I can't recommend this
| model enough. It can also enable commercial users to contribute
| code instead of having to find alternatives and directing their
| money elsewhere. I really believe an open source license can
| greatly benefit you and your software, helping a community to
| gather around it. NC will strongly limit how big this community
| can be.
|
| You could also make your binaries downloadable for a fee for
| everyone and send them for free to whoever sends you a message
| telling you they want to use your software in a non commercial
| setting.
|
| In any case, you do you and that's already very nice to provide
| the source code.
| bityard wrote:
| Well I clicked on the site and I don't see anywhere where you
| call it open source software, in fact your FAQ explicitly says
| that the licenses you provide are not open source.
|
| So what's the matter with just defending that position? Or
| ignoring those who don't read? People are allowed to not like
| software that's not open source. (And open source DOES have a
| particular definition. Which is very much not, "it's on github
| so it must be open source!")
| JohnTHaller wrote:
| The source is available, but it is not open source by the
| accepted definition used within the open source community:
| https://opensource.org/osd/
|
| Lots of source available projects are not open source. The
| source code being available on GitHub means that the source is
| available, not that it is open. I can post my copyrighted
| source code only permits me to use it in a project on GitHub.
| That doesn't make it open.
| ilyt wrote:
| > And without fail, people will howl ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE. They
| ignore that the code is on GitHub, and as long as you're not
| trying to make money with it, then do whatever you want with it
|
| Could just... not say that it is open source when it is not.
| The widely used definition of open is not limiting the usage of
| the code, not "just" showing the source code.
|
| "All rights reserved" code is still all rights reserved even if
| you put the code out there.
|
| > I don't like the idea of companies getting code for free and
| giving nothing back.
|
| Doesn't GPL/AGPL prevent that enough?
| majormajor wrote:
| It's not clear here if the poster you're replying to claims
| it's "open source" or if it's just source code on Github with
| a non-commercial license itself that offends some.
| [deleted]
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| It is open source. It's just not free.
|
| There's been a lot of effort to conflate those terms over the
| years.
| josephcsible wrote:
| Are you saying the Open Source Definition isn't the
| definition of open source?
| NotYourLawyer wrote:
| https://opensource.org/osd/
|
| I'm saying that there is a large amount of software out
| there that calls itself open source but that doesn't meet
| these terms.
| ilyt wrote:
| ...like ? Where is that "large amount"?
|
| The two I remember (Mongo and Elastic) were shat on for
| their license change and fake open source.
| jraph wrote:
| I have never run into such software and it would be wrong
| to do this. Open source is a well understood and non-
| controversial designation. If you are a developer you
| have run into the OSD for sure and therefore, even if you
| don't agree with this use of the expression, if your goal
| is to be clear and understood, you'd be a fool to call
| your software open source if it does not use an OSI
| approved license because it would be confusing and you'd
| be aware of this fact.
|
| The usual qualifier for software with source available is
| source-available. There's no doubt about it.
|
| We really don't need even more confusion around the terms
| of free software and open source than we already have.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Open Source is quite a strange term, and the only reason
| one would use it to refer to something other than an OSI-
| approved license is to intentionally cause confusion for
| users.
| LadyCailin wrote:
| To me, "open source" means you can see the source code. "Free
| software" means you don't have to pay for the binary. "Libre
| software" means you can do what you like with the software.
| The terms get conflated, but it seems to me that when you
| want to argue semantics, these are quite clear definitions.
| rhn_mk1 wrote:
| They might be clear, but they are not universally accepted.
| Ultimately, usage makes the definition.
| ilyt wrote:
| And doing that should be condemned, especially that in
| this case it is mostly to further corporate interest.
|
| What next, gotta call Windows "open source"?
| JohnFen wrote:
| > gotta call Windows "open source"?
|
| Just wait. That's coming.
| josephcsible wrote:
| > To me, "open source" means you can see the source code.
|
| To me, "sugar" means cane sugar, so I should be able to
| call food that's full of HFCS "sugar free".
| toast0 wrote:
| I mean, might as well go with if you don't have to pay
| for the sugar, you can call it "sugar free".
| pessimizer wrote:
| To me, "Open Source" means an OSI-approved license, and
| "Free Software" means a FSF-approved license. Any
| redefinition of these (quite strange) terms means that
| somebody is trying to make money piggybacking off of the
| goodwill that FOSS has generated.
|
| If your source is available, tell people that your source
| is available. If you're not going to charge for your
| software, call it "free software" if you want to confuse
| people, say it's available for free if you don't. Otherwise
| I'm going to start selling apples that are 30% plastic as
| _organic._
| JohnFen wrote:
| > To me, "Open Source" means an OSI-approved license, and
| "Free Software" means a FSF-approved license.
|
| I mostly agree, although I don't think they have to use
| the official licenses to qualify for the terms. Your
| license does have to adhere to the underlying principles
| those official licenses are built on, though!
|
| And this is where things fall down a bit, because too
| many people don't understand that these terms have very
| specific meanings and end up misusing them.
| ilyt wrote:
| It's not to the law. The fact you see the source doesn't
| mean you can just take and use it.
|
| > "Libre software" means you can do what you like with the
| software. The terms get conflated, but it seems to me that
| when you want to argue semantics, these are quite clear
| definitions.
|
| The term was perfectly clear before people like you tried
| to conflate it by throwing bullshit terms like "libre
| software"
| mook wrote:
| My understanding is that "you can see the source code" is
| typically labeled "source available". "Don't have to pay
| for the binary" is sometimes "free as in beer", or if
| you're using floppy disks, "freeware" (though that term
| seems to have fallen out of use).
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| >typically labeled "source available"
|
| I have literally only seen Free Software folks claiming
| this in similar discussions to this, and have not once
| seen that term used in practice (I'm sure you can find at
| least one example, but it's far from being common). The
| _typical_ term for this is still "open source" whether
| it technically conforms to the OSI definition or not.
| ilyt wrote:
| Yes, the people who created invented what open source is
| are the folks claiming that, how bizzare /s
|
| And corporations that try to get some free marketing and
| code I guess.
|
| The term is clear - lack of limitations of usage for the
| code makes it open source. If you put any limitations,
| whether noncommercial, "not for evil" etc. it stops being
| open.
|
| It's not hard. If you close a door, it's not open
| anymore.
| pantojax45 wrote:
| > And without fail, people will howl ITS NOT OPEN SOURCE.
|
| Right, they mean that, as a user, you are not free to use the
| software for any purpose, nor are you free to change it in any
| way. Whether open source is morally/ethically better is
| separate from its definition.
|
| It's fine for you to say you only want to support non-
| commercial use, but if you call it "Open Source" it dilutes the
| definition.
| WWLink wrote:
| If you were claiming that your project was free and open source
| on the front page, that would be very misleading and dangerous
| for software engineers at a company who may inadvertently use
| your code at their job in a professional manner and then get
| their employer sued for violating the terms of the license. I'm
| not sure how well that would hold up in court, because every
| other "free for non-commercial use" license I've seen was VERY
| up-front about that and had some call-out for professional-use
| license pricing.
|
| Using dubious marketing for a software product that isn't free
| for all uses would only tarnish the reputation of open source
| projects that ARE free. Eventually you get a company where
| someone was familiar with a lawsuit and makes a rule where
| using open source code is forbidden. Is that the path you want
| to go down?
| drewcoo wrote:
| > that would be very misleading and dangerous for software
| engineers at a company who may inadvertently use your code at
| their job in a professional manner and then get their
| employer sued for violating the terms of the license
|
| So there's another point of confusion/disagreement.
|
| I don't recall open source ever meaning "no restrictions."
| Copyleft, for example, is OSS with the restriction that any
| future use must also be OSS and copyleft.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > software engineers at a company who may inadvertently use
| your code at their job in a professional manner and then get
| their employer sued for violating the terms of the license.
|
| Every place I've ever worked treats OSS in exactly the same
| way as closed-source software. You don't get to just use it
| based on your own judgement as a dev. You have to request to
| use it, which involves providing the license it is under to
| legal and getting their approval.
|
| In most cases, legal will require a commercial license to be
| purchased if that's an option (even for OSS) because they
| value the legal certainty more than the cost of the
| commercial license.
| JohnFen wrote:
| The phrase "open source" has become very muddled and unclear
| these days, and you can no longer assume that software calling
| itself that is actually OSS.
|
| I've come to a place where I just consider the phrase as noise,
| and generally ignore it. Instead, I just pay attention to the
| license and if it's acceptable to me, I'll use it. If it's not, I
| won't. That serves my needs.
|
| I also stopped associating my own software with the term, even
| when it's actually open source by OSI's definition. Doing that
| avoids a whole lot of unnecessary arguing.
|
| It's a little sad for me, though. I've been a strong OSS advocate
| since the Dark Ages, and it's painful to have to disassociate
| with it.
| [deleted]
| shrimp_emoji wrote:
| Stallman was right yet again:
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html
| Culonavirus wrote:
| I mean, Unreal Engine is open source. That's all you really
| need to know. It is software "with source code that anyone
| can inspect, modify, and enhance", you just can't ship
| anything made with it without paying Epic a cut of your
| revenue. (Actually you can, Epic has this, well, pretty damn
| generous setup, where you don't pay anything until you reach
| $1M in gross revenue _per title_ , then it's 5% of gross
| revenue above $1M of that title. Just not to shit on Epic as
| everyone likes to do.)
| palata wrote:
| That is the definition of "source-available", not open
| source. The first sentence of the OSI definition [1] of
| open source is:
|
| "Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.
| The distribution terms of open-source software must comply
| with the following criteria:"
|
| [1]: https://opensource.org/osd/
| jraph wrote:
| That's source-available.
|
| What's with people in this HN thread knowing full well
| about the open source definition but advocating for this
| confusing use of the term anyway, don't you strive for
| clarity and ambiguity-free expression when talking about
| something?
|
| And also... what is the link between unreal engine and this
| text from RMS about the different philosophies behind the
| Open Source and the Free Software movement?
| Dalewyn wrote:
| The way I see it, it's very simple: If I can view the source
| code, it's open source.
|
| Open source has nothing to do with whether something is free-
| as-in-beer or commercial, whether something is free-as-in-libre
| or proprietary, or whatever else.
|
| Open source simply means source code that is open for public
| viewing, all other rights reserved unless declared otherwise.
|
| Obligatory IANAL, don't take legal advice from random internet
| comments.
| cxr wrote:
| > The way I see it, it's very simple: If I can view the
| source code, it's open source.
|
| By that definition, Harry Potter is open source. As is every
| Star Wars novelization, New York Times article...
|
| I'm looking forward to your fork of your favorite open source
| franchise.
| singpolyma3 wrote:
| Except that we literally have a different term for that:
| "shared source"
| JohnFen wrote:
| This is the first and only time I've heard that term used.
| palata wrote:
| There is a first for everything ;).
|
| It's also called "source-available".
| JohnFen wrote:
| I understand your definition. The problem is that not
| everyone agrees with it. This is a great example of why I
| don't use the term -- there is no longer a real consensus on
| what it means, exactly.
| cxr wrote:
| > The problem is that not everyone agrees with it [...]
| there is no longer a real consensus on what it means
|
| The term lacks consensus in the way that evolution lacks
| consensus. Overwhelmingly, it's those least in a position
| to disagree stating that they disagree.
| palata wrote:
| I think that the OSI definition is a large consensus:
| https://opensource.org/osd/
| fn-mote wrote:
| > If I can view the source code, it's open source
|
| The whole point of this discussion is that this term is
| contentious. Your comment reads to me as dismissive of the
| arguments/context/nuance without engaging in a dialog.
|
| Especially as a reply to the GP who essentially says "I
| stopped using the term open source because it was
| problematic."
| Dalewyn wrote:
| I agree "open source" has become a problematic term, thanks
| to people who want to throw political dogma onto an
| otherwise useful term.
|
| I've seen plenty of open source software published under
| restrictive licenses, and closed source software published
| under free-as-in-beer and/or free-as-in-libre licenses.
|
| Open/closed source seriously has nothing to do with payment
| terms, usage rights (aside from viewing the source code,
| obviously), and whatever else. It is very counterproductive
| that people keep trying to conflate what open/closed source
| means.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| >If I can view the source code, it's open source.
|
| The windows source code was leaked several years ago, so
| obviously windows is open source.
| jraph wrote:
| You have it backwards: if it's open source, then you can see
| the code. This remains true even in cases people are being
| sloppy with the term.
|
| Open source is whatever follows the open source definition.
| No more, no less.
|
| What you are talking about is source available. This is the
| only designation that is not confusing and that is
| uncontroversial.
|
| I haven't seen any half-serious project use "open source"
| that does not actually use an OSI-approved license.
|
| But I agree with the parent commenter. Do check out what is
| the actual license in any case, and feel free to avoid the
| term open source altogether if you think it confuses people.
| As this HN thread seems to show, the term does seem to
| confuse people indeed. You can use free software, or even
| "libre" if you find free software confusing. Or FLOSS.
| grt_thr wrote:
| [dead]
| palata wrote:
| I agree that it is very simple, but I believe that you should
| not make up your own definition (respectfully) :).
|
| What you describe is "source-available":
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
|
| Open source implies stuff like free redistribution and
| derived works (among others): https://opensource.org/osd/
|
| Free/Libre implies open source, but goes one step further,
| implying freedom for the end-user. If I license my library as
| LGPL (for instance), I am saying that I want the end-users to
| be able to read and modify my library in the products they
| buy. And therefore if you want to build a product using my
| LGPL library, then you must make sure that your users can do
| that with my library.
| hristov wrote:
| Viewing the source code does not give you much rights. In
| most cases it probably wont even give you the right to view
| the source code, because if you do not have the right to
| compile and run the code yourself, it is quite possible and
| actually likely that the person giving you the source code
| will not give you the correct source code.
|
| So if that is the acceptable term for open source it does not
| mean much. It seems to me that historically the meaning of
| open source implies much more than being able to view the
| code. It implies the right to compile the code, to run the
| compiled code, to make changes, etc.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Also, I sell some libraries that are specifically not open
| sourced. But you know what people who license my libraries
| get along with the binaries? The source code. What they
| don't get is the right to redistribute the source code or
| the libraries themselves except in the form of having been
| linked to an application. So, not open source.
| ronsor wrote:
| The first company being referred to in the article that wants 10%
| of your revenue trained Falcon LLM, I believe. The company is
| tied to Abu Dhabi/UAE government.
| m463 wrote:
| A lot of people try to pull a fast one by capitalizing on
| ambiguity or euphemisms.
|
| I think of speakers who might talk about terms like "justice" in
| an attempt to have something in common with a group, all the
| while hiding that their definition of "justice" is different than
| the group's definition.
|
| Same goes for "telemetry" or "analytics" or "advertising", which
| mostly means using surveillance to build a dossier for everyone.
|
| Stallman should get credit when he nitpicks the finer points,
| because it might be annoying, but it is important to make the
| finer distinctions:
|
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Stallman should get credit when he nitpicks the finer points,
| because it might be annoying
|
| I've long thought that the aspects that make him annoying are
| the very same aspects that make him invaluable.
| bityard wrote:
| I just wrote a comment about this kind of thing recently. It's
| sad that 2023 seems to be the year of entrepreneurs, SEOs,
| marketers, and other kinds of bullshitters intentionally diluting
| the meaning of "open" and "free" software.
|
| I feel like the DFSG is the most concise version of what the
| Internet used to generally consider open and free software:
| https://wiki.debian.org/DebianFreeSoftwareGuidelines
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-01 23:02 UTC)