[vitno]

> Curious, do you write comments like this whenever...

Uh.. I actually often do. I would more, but it generally isn't appreciated and is off topic of the main thread. Here, the software license is a key component of the release seeing as it is a unique component of it.

>Open source is about the source being open plus certain benefits.

It's more than that. The key intent of OSS is the right to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. The source code is just a prereq for that ability.

I did initially use stallman-esque language, since it's terminology most people are familiar with in this field, but I'll approach it from a different point since I personally have problems with strong copy-left licenses.

The primary thing this license doesn't do is allow distribution in the OSS spirit. This is really just a pervasive license, actually in some ways similar to the Stallman-esque virality except with a corporate intent. It simply masquerades as OSS.

[nickpsecurity]

"The key intent of OSS is the right to study, change, and distribute the software to anyone and for any purpose. The source code is just a prereq for that ability."

No, the key intent of open-sourcing software is to let one see the source. That's it. Additional intents are added with licensing terms. This goes back to academic and even proprietary (eg Burrough's 1960's MCP) examples that did this. Many models of it formed with examples ranging from permissive BSD to proprietary OSS like LISP machines (esp Genera) letting customers use the source of OS & supporting libs in applications.

So, OSS is a broader thing than you are describing which supports many models. There is no "spirit" so much as many different ideologies competing and pushing their own licensing schemes with various perceived benefits. Now there's one more.

[yarrel]

This is not Open Source, and trying to ignore the historical meaning of the term doesn't make it so.

[nickpsecurity]

I just cited history rather than ignored it. That included Burrough's and LISP machines as examples past my linked essay in this thread. However, your side is ignoring all historical examples of proprietary OSS and even how non-proprietary OSS operated then vs now. Old model of academia varied from MIT/BSD-style to paid w/ source model.

So, your rendering of open-source history is false both in academia and commercial sector. It's always been a mix with proprietary favoring closed source due to financial incentives, especially lock-in. Nothing precluded more paid OSS strategies aside from culture of organizations involved. As dual-licensed projects and proprietary w/ OSS benefits like this one show.

[davexunit]

You are incorrect. "Open Source" is a well-defined term.

http://opensource.org/osd

[nickpsecurity]

The phrase itself originally came from the free software movement. The practice pre-dated it. Former is philosophical meaning with strings attached, the latter is a literal definition with many forms. I'm using the latter.

I'd be up for considering a new term to avoid confusion. Paid, non-profit or for-profit, models allow for most benefits of OSS if structured correctly. So, the new phrase must allow for that. I've been calling it "proprietary OSS" or "paid OSS."

[davexunit]

>Former is philosophical meaning with strings attached, the latter is a literal definition with many forms. I'm using the latter.

You can't just change the meaning of the term and expect everyone to know you mean this alternate definition. "Open Source" is as defined by the OSI, and not whatever loose definition that you use that includes proprietary software.

>I've been calling it "proprietary OSS" or "paid OSS."

"Proprietary OSS" does not make sense given the definition of OSS! The phrase you should be using is "proprietary software."

[nickpsecurity]

"You can't just change the meaning of the term and expect everyone to know you mean this alternate definition. "Open Source" is as defined by the OSI, and not whatever loose definition that you use that includes proprietary software."

I've already agreed with you and dragonwriter on that. dragonwriter suggested "shared source" as a start. Might go with that temporarily.

""Proprietary OSS" does not make sense given the definition of OSS! The phrase you should be using is "proprietary software.""

Starting now. Proprietary, shared-source software would make sense and can have most benefits of OSS. Just calling it proprietary software, though, instantly conveys the image of something closed source, for money, not allowing modifications, and with tons of risk. So, I can't just call an OSS-like, but paid, model proprietary due to public perception much like I apparently can't use "proprietary OSS" for same reason.

Hence, need for new terms. Especially one that captures the spirit of OSS with change that distribution/use is paid to some degree in some way, either money or code/doc contributions. Will re-write my old essay, though, as you two got to the bottom of one of its problems.

[davexunit]

>Especially one that captures the spirit of OSS with change that distribution/use is paid to some degree in some way

This illustrates yet another confusion about FOSS. There's nothing in either the Free Software or Open Source definitions that says that a fee cannot be charged for software. You can charge money for free software!