[Brian_K_White]

What? Why are you even trying to say that those constitute access to the source in any meaningful way to anyone?

Yes proprietary licensing does preclude source availability, obviously, because no one has access to those source licenses, and the few that do, have to sign nda's preventing them from publicising what they see. If someone is working for someone huge enough to actually have one of those source licenses, they can't use it to fork and publish a fixed version of the product, or even publish open source code to merely interoperate if the details end up disclosing inner workings indirectly. Whatever they get out of it, it doesn't do anyone else any good, and that fact itself means it doesn't even do them as much good as it could.

There may be some products where the vendor charges less than millions of dollars, because not all products are Adobe CS or the PS5's os or Turbo Tax etc, but so what? The proprietary license itself defines the most important fact, which is who retains the right to grant and deny access and usage. The fact there may exist some products where the vendor happens to be small or cooperative means nothing at all, because others are not, and even the ones that are can and do change the deal at any time.

Those licenses don't matter, because the licensees are no different than employees. The employees who develop a proprietary product can also see the source. The special licensees are no different.

Saying the option to get one of those licenses means the source is available, is like saying you could always get a job at that company and the source would be available.

This is a baffling argument to even try to float. Not merely that the argument falls apart instantly at the first glance, the more remarkable thing is I can't imagine why anyone would even want to try.

[kube-system]

> Yes proprietary licensing does preclude source availability, obviously, because no one has access to those source licenses, and the few that do, have to sign nda's preventing them from publicising what they see.

The people who are a party to shared source licenses, have access to the source. There licenses are very meaningful to those who use them. They might not be beneficial to you, but that is likely not their concern.

FOSS software can also be subject to NDA. In fact, this is not uncommon. Many companies use Apache/MIT/GPL software, use the software internally, and have their employees sign NDAs.

[Brian_K_White]

You are babbling full-on gibberish now.

"The people who are a party to shared source licenses, have access to the source"

So do the employees of the original vendor. So what? How does that matter at all? It means nothing and has no bearing on this topic.

"FOSS software can also be subject to NDA."

Bwhahh wut? No. And I mean, by definition, no.

An organization may take some foss and use it internally and hide that modified internal version, but that means nothing to anyone else. They can't nda the original software they forked from, and they can't even nda their modified version unless the original happens to be MIT-like or they never redistribute it.

There is a lot of MIT software which doesn't require sharing back, but that still doesn't change anything.

Their private mods are no different than anything else they write privately. Whether the private thing is a diff off of a public thing, or something standalone, makes no difference and has no bearing on the original public thing. Their new private thing, if it is nda'd, is then by definition, not foss. It doesn't matter that it's comprised of a copy of some other foss plus whatever they added. It's now just some proprietary software like any other.

None of that harms anyone else or makes foss somehow just as limited as proprietary or proprietary just as available as foss.

What a bizzare claim to try to make.

[kube-system]

> "The people who are a party to shared source licenses, have access to the source"

> So do the employees of the original vendor. So what? How does that matter at all? It means nothing and has no bearing on this topic.

The title of this topic begins with: "EULAs Aren't Inherently Evil"

My point is that, FOSS only provides benefits to users who care about modifying or redistributing that software. Not everyone does. Giving my mother the right to modify and redistribute software does not provide any tangible benefit to her, because she will never do that.

For the many institutional users who take advantage of shared-source licenses, they also have no desire to redistribute or change the software, they simply want to audit it. They are not being prevented from doing anything that they wanted to do.

What evil is done to a user when you take away a right to do something they had no desire to do? And for that matter, why is taking away people's tort rights something that is assumed to be good for users?

I personally appreciate and contribute to FOSS, but the idea that it protects the rights of anyone other than developers specifically is myopic.

Just like proprietary licenses restrict the rights of users, so do almost all FOSS licenses -- just in different ways. The difference is not that one protects your rights and the other one doesn't, the difference is in which rights they choose to protect.