[CyberRabbi]

If being an asshole is something the Zig community does not want people to do with its code, why not just license Zig in such a way to prevent this type of usage of its code?

They already implement a code of conduct to restrict behavior in their community.

[jlarocco]

Is it necessary to go through all that work to re-license, though? I don't see the problem with how they're handling it now.

The person in question is free to use the code and be an asshole. Everybody else is free to call him out for it.

[crdrost]

So in general yes, if you don’t have copyright assignment it is a lot of work to relicense. But that is not necessarily the case here... things like the MIT license (which ziglang uses) are often so permissive that you can relicense them as GPL.

With that said this sort of thing can result in mass contributor exoduses. One might prefer an in-between license like a per-file copyleft as you see in the Mozilla Public License, which is still GPL-compatible but does not put the full onus of the GPL on the software, solving this problem in a more narrow way (connectFree has to keep their proprietary software separate from ziglang when combining the two together, which forces them to be much more transparent about their value-add—things which they cannot keep separate need to be contributed back upstream).

[ocdtrekkie]

Because then it wouldn't be open source. The open source definition prohibits developers from placing a lot of arbitrary license restrictions. One of the examples of this is that Gab, an alt-right site, now uses Mastodon, a platform written and used largely by a pretty far-left community.

[colinmhayes]

We can get into semantics on what open source means, but I don't think the definition has to include a prohibition on any licenses. Open source just means the source code is freely available.

[igneo676]

Except, we do have a rigorous definition on what Open Source really means. The best place to check is the OSI's definition[0] and the licenses they approve[1]. What you're describing is commonly described as Source Available and doesn't readily meet the definition of Open Source.

Our terms matter. And considering this conversation is really about what it means to be OSS and what the tradeoffs are, we need to "get into semantics on what open source means". Too many people co-opt the term and we need to defend it.

[0]: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated

[1]: https://opensource.org/licenses

[colinmhayes]

I reject the OSI's claim to have authority over what "open source" means. We do not have a rigorous definition of what open source means beyond the source code is freely available.

[yjftsjthsd-h]

> I reject the OSI's claim to have authority over what "open source" means. We do not have a rigorous definition of what open source means beyond the source code is freely available.

I'm genuinely sympathetic, in that it rubs me a little bit the wrong way to say that one organization can define "open source". In practice, however, the only people I've ever seen actually arguing this are people trying to pretend that their license is open source when it really isn't.

[igneo676]

That's fine if you reject the OSI's definition. We've been having this conversation as a community for decades and "the source code is freely available" is not enough.

For instance, there's Debian's[0] (which was considered authoritative enough that the OSI basically used it as their own) which spells out the freedoms necessary for software to be considered Open Source. This extends beyond the source being available to not discriminating against people groups, allowing for modification, etc.

There's another from the FSF/GNU projects[1] which lay out the Four Essential Freedoms. These extend beyond source availability to the ability to run the program as you wish, to study the program and to redistribute it (among others).

To say source availability == Open Source is to rewrite history. It's about user freedom and always has been.

[0]: https://www.debian.org/social_contract

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

[cxr]

You can say you reject it, but you're not entitled to your own set of facts.

[colinmhayes]

Ok well here are the facts. Open means freely and widely available. Source means source code. Open source means the programs code is freely and widely available. If you want to add other stuff onto that you need to find a new phrase.

[bmn__]

That sort of licence is not helpful. It would be unenforceable in practice and run afoul of DFSG and similar and prevent inclusion into distros.

[CyberRabbi]

Im not a lawyer but I’m fairly certain it’s possible for the Zig foundation to craft a license that reduces Zig’s anxiety w.r.t. malicious actors and that still satisfies DFSG. The GPL is an example.