[microtonal]

I think this is an overly dogmatic way of looking at Open Source.

Open Source is a functional definition that served us for 25 years. E.g. if software is Open Source, it can be included in a Linux distribution. Most distributions do not accept software that is incompatible with the Open Source definition. Diluting the term open source makes it more difficult to talk about a certain class of software licenses.

And why dilute the term if we have the perfect alternative term source available?

[brendank310]

Because it is open source. It's not Free Open Source Software (FOSS) as deemed by some foundation or another. There is a lot of great open source software not included in Linux because of licensing issues (e.g. BSD clashing with GPL). Source available has generally meant you can have the source if you meet some criteria (have a license), but the license prevents you from redistributing it. I haven't dug into this license but it seems less restrictive than the AGPL.

[tpxl]

How is it less restrictive when AGPL allows you to run a SaSS, but this one doesn't?

[tm-guimaraes]

It's a different restriction. AGPL lets you do anything as long as it is just as Free (as in freedom), while these kind of license only let you do things that don't compete with whatever is the current copyright owner business is doing. And business tend to change over time, and it might be simple to be clear to a court if you are competing or not.

"Do whatever you want as long as you keep it Free Software" vs "do whatever you want as long as we believe you are not taking customers for us"

As usual, RMS was right, and I recommend reading the Free Software vs Open Source essay, unfortunately both names make it easy to misinterpret their respective fundamental idea (Free can and is usually interpreted as "gratis", and open as available/published/shared)

[ahachete]

I agree with your sentiment, but I'd like to clarify the following, IMO:

> It's a different restriction.

AGPL doesn't impose restrictions. It provides guarantees (that modified versions will remain AGPL and therefore open source for everybody).

> AGPL lets you do anything as long as it is just as Free (as in freedom)

By the very definition of open source software, you can do pretty much what you want, for your own usage. If you want to distribute (e.g. provide a service) with a modified version, then you need to guarantee that modified version retains the right that the original version granted.

[tm-guimaraes]

Sorry but you are just changing angles and discussing semantics.

Let me do the same for the quasi "open source" licenses:

Elastic license doesn't impose restrictions. It provides guarantees (that modified versions will not take business from you).

The only way you guarantee something, is by restricting something else. AGPL restricts distribution.

[ahachete]

> Elastic license doesn't impose restrictions.

It does. It explicitly forbids usage. FOSS doesn't impose any restrictions on usage.

Fundamentally different things. I encourage you to review the four freedoms of Free Software [1] and see how AGPLv3 provide them all while Elastic License does not.

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

[ssddanbrown]

> AGPL restricts distribution.

It does not restrict distribution, instead of restricts the ability to limit/restrict distribution. Quite a significant difference.

Also, fundamentally, one (AGPL) is putting the freedoms of the code and its users over those of the authors whereas the other (ELv2) puts the freedoms and interests of its authoring business over the freedom of the code and it's users.

[ianbutler]

Is it now? I was under the assumption it was an ideological definition, at least that's how people present every time one of these projects are even a smidge off from the OSI definition.

I don't think most major Open Source projects in the last 10 years have even once considered,

'E.g. if software is Open Source, it can be included in a Linux distribution.'

That is exactly what I mean by "out of touch".

If I had to guess the primary motivator for being Open Source, are the communal and moral aspects of it.

[jdub]

Software Freedom is an ideology. Open Source is a definition.

[ianbutler]

Well the trademark is going the way of bandaid, and definitions change regularly.

Edit: I see you edited that part out.

[jdub]

The OSI definition hasn't changed. It barely changed what it borrowed from the Debian Free Software Guidelines before that.

("Open Source" itself isn't a trademark, but the OSI bits are, so I removed it to avoid confusion.)

(There's no indication that the legal construction of a trademark is "going the way of the bandaid", or that bandaids are "going the way of the bandaid" for that matter.)