[dragonwriter]

> Open source is about the source being open plus certain benefits. Free and open source software, a la Richard Stallman, is a totally different thing with a philosophy akin to how a virus operates.

This is all wrong. One: Stallman only advocates Free Software, not Open Source, and not "Free and open source". Open Source Software and Free Software are defined very similar in substance (by the OSI and FSF, respectively), what differs most substantially between the respective organization is the philosophy of why they think those definitions are desirable, not the substance of the definition. Virtually all licenses that have been considered by both the FSF and OSI have either been recognized as meeting both definitions, or have been found to be outside of both; there's almost no inconsistency.

"Free and open source software" is a collective term for the common category of software described by the FSF and OSI definitions, typically used by people who are not interested in (when using it) diverting things into a philosophical debate over preferred terminology between "Free Software" and "Open Source".

The license type sometimes described as "viral" espoused by the Stallman and the FSF is copyleft license, which is a kind of Free Software (and/or Open Source) license which has clauses to assure derivative works are licensed under a similar license; the GPL and AGPL are well-known copyleft licenses.

[nickpsecurity]

Another commenter countered me on that and I agreed with the modification here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10623006

Any suggestion for what to call (a) software with source included in general that doesn't meet OSI & FSF definitions or (b) paid software w/ key benefits of OSI?

[dragonwriter]

> Any suggestion for what to call (a) software with source included in general that doesn't meet OSI & FSF definitions

"Source disclosed" or "Shared source".

> paid software w/ key benefits of OSI?

Since Open Source (and, for that matter, Free -- which means libre, but not necessarily gratis) software can be paid, if paid software actually has the "key benefits" of Open Source, it is probably because it is Open Source.

[nickpsecurity]

"Shared source"

It's a start.

"if paid software actually has the "key benefits" of Open Source, it is probably because it is Open Source."

You got me thinking on it enough to consult the opensource.org requirements. :) Two jumped out at me immediately:

" Free Redistribution"

"License Must Not Be Specific to a Product"

Many forms of paid software with open-source benefits don't allow this or not for all parties. A license might have to be paid on a per-user, per-product, or per-project basis. Other benefits of OSS can remain. So, it's not traditional definition of OSS but still respects freedoms of paying users to various degrees.

[dragonwriter]

> Many forms of paid software with open-source benefits don't allow this or not for all parties.

I think most people who believe that open source has benefits would disagree that there is software that provides "open-source benefits" without providing this. What specific examples can you point to of these "many forms" of paid software, and what "open-source benefits" do they provide without these?

[nickpsecurity]

I'm talking about licenses/models rather than specific products which come and go in this space outside dual-licensing or proprietary with source as in embedded scene.

To get more specific, you can read the source, you can modify it to suit your needs, you can submit modifications for redistribution by owner, you can fix problems, port to new hardware, often include it in your proprietary software, optional component of OSS software, and optionally fork it as GPL. (optional used to denote some paid, source-shared don't do this) That's really close to OSS software while still being proprietary to support active development and maintenance by full-time people. The dollar amount w/ associated benefits can be as large or small as one likes, even fixed. Provisions can be made for it to go BSD etc if abandoned or unsupported by original owner.

I'm just curious how far a proprietary model can go into increased OSS-style benefits and reduced proprietary-style risks. I'm sure it's way closer than people think with the dual-licensed stuff being most obvious indicators that hybrid models w/ licensing revenue are achievable.