[monero-xmr]

Charging for a commercial license is virtual closed-source. You have reinvented selling software, except with a “try before you buy” model that enables engineers to vet its utility first before paying, with free usage for non-profits (i.e. other non-profit devs).

I’m not making any comment about the merits of this model. I strictly make and sell closed-source software (SaaS). But it’s funny to me that this is essentially the same business model, but you use the threat of legal action rather than API keys to enforce your rights. “Open Source” is in the name only.

[memefrog]

It is not "virtually closed source" to license something as GPLv3 and also under a proprietary license. In fact, it is something explicitly advocated for by Richard Stallman himself and the Free Software Foundation generally:

https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions

He's got mixed feelings, but says "I consider selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will suggest it where appropriate as a way to get programs freed."

If of all people rms considers something acceptable, then whatever that thing is, it certainly can't be described as "virtually closed source".

If you release something as open source software, then it is open source software. The end. That's what the term means. Also licensing it under a proprietary license doesn't change that. Free software licensing is not "try before you buy", and it is not "free usage for non-profits". Open source and "not for profit" are not synonyms de facto or de jure. You can use GPL'd software in commercial products and in fact many people do, frequently. You probably have a dozen copies of Linux in your house in various appliances that you don't even know are there. There are many other examples.

[ximm]

There is a subtle but important difference here though:

If you publish a piece of software under two licenses, one open source and one commercial, why would anybody pick the commercial one?

You cannot say "corporations have to pick the commercial one". The only way to do that would be to include a term in the open source license so it cannot be used by corporations. But then it would no longer meet the open source definition. "Free for private use but payed for commercial use" is not open source!

But if the open source license is copyleft (e.g. GPL), any software that uses it would also have to be open source. So dual licensing allows corporations to pay to keep their own code a secret.

This implies that dual licensing is pointless for non-copyleft licenses like MIT, and also for developer tooling that is not directly used in the final product.

[amadvance]

> Why would anybody pick the commercial one?

The OpenSource license is typically GPLv3 that imposes that your whole application has to be GPLv3. This is enough for corporations to avoid it.

[ipaddr]

You might want the logos

[mlatu]

so you have an about window that says "look how lazy i was, i used all this software i dont support and you still have to pay me full price"

idk. it reaaaaally _isnt_ that big a selling point to see all the open source projects one has used in a commercial application as you might be thinking

[brightlancer]

> It is not "virtually closed source" to license something as GPLv3 and also under a proprietary license.

That is not what is proposed in the article:

----

Isotope is open source, but there are different licenses depending on how you intend to use it:

    Open source license.

This license allows Isotope to be used in personal or open source projects for free.

    Commercial license.

This license permits you to use Isotope in almost any commercial app. Realistically speaking, any company wishing to use it, most likely will need to buy a commercial license.

----

That is not open source. It's proprietary software offered as freeware for non-commercial use.

[commoner]

Isotope's actual license page is much clearer than the article's summary:

> The open source license is designed for you to use Isotope to build open source and personal projects. The Isotope open source license is GPLv3. The GPLv3 has many terms, but the most important is how it is sticky when you distribute your work publicly. From the GPL FAQ:

>> If you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

> Releasing your project that uses Isotope under the GPLv3, in turn, requires your project to be licensed under the GPLv3. If you are okay with this, feel free to use Isotope under the GPLv3, without purchasing a commercial license.

https://isotope.metafizzy.co/license.html#open-source-licens...

Isotope's code is available under GPLv3 with no further restrictions. Although the page says that the project's use of GPLv3 is "designed for you to use Isotope to build open source and personal projects", it does not say that Isotope cannot be used for commercial projects under GPLv3.

[brightlancer]

Thank you for the correction; I'm not familiar with the project and just went off how the article described it.

> Although the page says that the project's use of GPLv3 is "designed for you to use Isotope to build open source and personal projects", it does not say that Isotope cannot be used for commercial projects under GPLv3.

Yeah, it's unfortunate they misrepresented the GPL and I wonder if that is how the author became confused.

[imtringued]

They haven't misrepresented anything. The GPL license can be used for open source projects by companies (e.g. for commercial purposes). There is no need to include a more specific category if you already covered the broader category.

[robertlagrant]

> That is not open source. It's proprietary software offered as freeware for non-commercial use

I shudder at these confident, definitive statements when they're off the mark this far. It's not just "freeware" when you can see, modify, sell and redistribute under the same licence. It's open source.

[brightlancer]

> It's not just "freeware" when you can see, modify, sell and redistribute under the same licence. It's open source.

As the author described it, you could _not_ sell it:

"This license allows Isotope to be used in personal or open source projects for free."

It turns out that the author was incorrect about Isotope because their software is GPL, but what they were proposing was not open source:

"There are no Pro versions, no license keys and there’s nothing else to maintain. Individual developers enjoy the same tool for free, while companies pay a reasonable price."

[robertlagrant]

Sure, but that's not the case? It was already mentioned in this thread that it was dual-licenced GPLv3.

[godelski]

I really think these kinds of comments are counter productive to people seeing source available software (SAS, OSS, FOSS, or all three). Free to the public but not corporate is clearly not "try before you buy" and is a gross misinterpretation of this. I don't care what Citizens United ruling said, corporations are not the same as people and we should distinguish them as such. This model is in no way functionally similar to closed-source software and the comparison is laughable. The source is right there!

__Stop gatekeeping__

Source available software with commercial licensing still helps the main intended target: hackers, builders, inventors, creators, learners, researchers, pen testers, and so on. Opened source code makes programs safer and encourages creativity. The article is right that you can't just live on donations and pure good will, as much as we'd love to see this you gotta pay the bills. Accountability is low in large societies and social pressure means little. SAS still helps the people, but it also puts restrictions on those that would profit off of your work and leave you high and dry. Comments like these only encourage closed source hardware as well as the lack of free software.

The fucking name OSS confuses people and this has been an utter disaster. Your name should clearly indicate what is being advocated and should not conflict with a reasonable but distinctly different definition (there's a lot of this for some fucking reason). Especially when the reasonable interpretation makes more sense! Even you say that it is in the name only and we see these fights almost weekly here. Words mean what people use them as. I don't care what OSI says, OSS and SAS are the same thing. Corporations lose trademarks as words/phrases enter the lexicon, I don't know why we should defend OSI's inane definition. They have not won the culture war on what the term means.

[memefrog]

"Source available" is not open source and has nothing to do with open source. Open source never confused people until bad-faith actors started intentionally trying to confuse them by labeling things that aren't open source as "open source". Open source has a precise definition and it has had it for decades. If you describe your software as open source and it is not available under an open source license then you are a malicious bad-faith fraudster that is trying to use the reputation of open source software to prop up a fraudulent practice based on lies.

It doesn't matter one whit whether people can "pay the bills". It's totally irrelevant to the discussion. If you can't make money making open source software, then go get a job. This is like people complaining they did a degree in underwater basket weaving and can't get a job, or people complaining that they can't get a job as an artist or a guitarist. Guess what, most people can't make money from their hobbies. Some programmers get pretty lucky and turn their hobbies into jobs. If you want to give it a go, good on you. Most people don't even want to. Of those that do want to, most do not succeed. You have no entitlement to be successful in your attempts to do so.

And there's no rule that says that you have to release things you make as open source software. If you want to make money, you might find that the best way to do that is not to release your software as open source. That's your prerogative. But you can't make that choice and then also choose to ride on the reputation of the "open source" label. That label means something, and has meant the same thing for decades. You can choose: release your software as open source and call it that, or release it as "source available" and be honest about it.

And you're completely wrong when you say "They have not won the culture war on what the term means". They absolutely have. The only place I've ever seen anyone pretend that "open source" can legitimately mean something other than the OSI's definition is on this forum.

[warkanlock]

> Guess what, most people can't make money from their hobbies

Essentially this. As talking heads said,

Never for money Always for love

[scrollaway]

I have a dozen hobbies and have been able to make money out of every single one I've actually tried to. Be it as a coach/tutor, organizing events, creating things, etc.

My girlfriend wanted to turn her life-long artistic craft (ceramics) into proper work so we opened an art studio together.

It's not hard, problem's with you, and problem is certainly with anyone arguing that you can't make money with open source. Just because you don't know how doesn't mean it's not possible.

Living off your hobbies makes for a good life.

[godelski]

Most people can't make money from their businesses. I'm not sure why that means they shouldn't try.

[ezekg]

> The only place I've ever seen anyone pretend that "open source" can legitimately mean something other than the OSI's definition is on this forum.

I don’t think this is entirely accurate in practice. I talk to businesses, individuals, and enterprises every single day and they all refer to my SAS as open source software. So I don’t think everybody sees OSS like you and OSI wills them to. I’m stepping on toes by saying that, but from my sample size, that’s what I see and hear.

The only places I’ve seen this dogma is here on HN, in GitHub issues about gaslighting [^0], and on r/opensource.

[^0]: https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/issues/40 (and other linked issues therein)

[bruce511]

>> I talk to businesses, individuals, and enterprises every single day and they all refer to my SAS as open source software.

I know it gets tedious, but its useful to politely correct this terminology when it's used incorrectly.

I get that managers are not techies, but allowing them to use this term is harmful to them.

A) they heard the term from one of their programmers, which means the programmer doesn't understand the difference, which can lead to legal troubles or

B) they know the term, but use it incorrectly here, which they could then say to an actual programmer, which he then treats as open source, and can cause legal troubles.

[godelski]

> I get that managers are not techies, but allowing them to use this term is harmful to them.

All I'm saying is that if the words you use have a reasonable interpretation that is different from what is intended, it is better to just adopt new phrasing.

> which can lead to legal troubles

I very much doubt this. LeCun has been calling MAIR's work Open Source for quite awhile and people have been arguing about it being Source Available and not Open Source™. IANAL but I have a feeling that if OSI took Meta to court that they would lose, just like I expect Taco John to lose Taco Tuesday and how Bayer lost aspirin. I'd say that the case would probably even be clearer than those, as all Meta needs is a dictionary. I'm sure there's something similar to Roger's test for this.

Fwiw, I don't know a single person, in the flesh, that thinks Open Source is different from Source Available. My bubble is mostly nerds and techy folks. I was only introduced to the OSI definition here on HN, and I was already starting graduate school by that time, even having work experience developing software. I'm not sure what bubble I'm in or the "OSI's definition is well known" is in, but clearly we have to recognize that at least people like me exist. It seems like we're not uncommon either.

[bruce511]

I didn't mean legal troubles as in from OSI,but legal troubles from a copyright holder if the source is treated as Open by a programmer.

Open software can be distributed freely. If a programmer is told it is Open, there is a chance they will unwittingly use it in a way that is not permissable under the actual license terms.

Even as an honest mistake, this can lead to serious copyright violations that some companies will not hesitate to demand payment for.

[memefrog]

>Fwiw, I don't know a single person, in the flesh, that thinks Open Source is different from Source Available.

Then educate them. Open source has had a stable definition since before I was born. It is not up for debate. All of a sudden in the last couple of years shitty people have tried to confuse people by labelling non-free licenses 'open source'. That is fraudulent.

[ezekg]

The problem is that I'm not talking to managers when seeing the term open source, most of the time I'm talking to programmers. Literally all techies.

Many of them can use, modify, and distribute my SAS free of charge, like every other OSS license they know, so it actually won't get them into legal trouble. My SAS is open source to them, because the ELv2 only has a single usage restriction and that's not their use-case. For most, it's more permissive than GPL/AGPL!

I'm not going to correct them.

[bruce511]

Fair enough. If your license makes it "virtual Open Source" in their hands, then they can call it as such and use it as such.

And sure, while ELv2 is not an OSI open license, it's not exactly a proprietary license either. So the line here is very blurred.

Your position in this case makes sense.

[pydry]

>The only places I’ve seen this dogma is here on HN, in GitHub issues about gaslighting [^0], and on r/opensource.

Part of the problem is the "Open Software Foundation" likes to take a bunch of corporate money and then pen definitions of what "really is" and "really isn't" open source that people pick up on.

[memefrog]

They established the definition and nobody had a problem with it for decades. It has nothing to do with money.

[godelski]

> "Source available" is not open source and has nothing to do with open source. Open source never confused people until bad-faith actors started intentionally trying to confuse them by labeling things that aren't open source as "open source".

I do not know how one can say such a thing with a straight face. The confusion does not require bad faith actors, but just the ability to speak English. LITERACY is what causes the confusion. It is right there in the words: _open_ source.

> Open: adjective

> 1: having no enclosing or confining barrier : accessible on all or nearly all sides

> 2a(1): being in a position or adjustment to permit passage : not shut or locked

> 3a: completely free from concealment : exposed to general view or knowledge

> Synonyms: clear, free, unobstructed, ==> _AVAILABLE_ <==

Why is there confusion? Because the source is right there, in clear view, unobstructed, and not hidden behind any doors. Yes, OSI's definition also fits the definition. It is also a reasonable interpretation of those combined words. But to say that confusing "available source" and "open source" is only caused because of bad faith actors is ludicrous when they mean the same thing. Talk about calling the kettle black.

> Guess what, most people can't make money from their hobbies... You have no entitlement to be successful in your attempts to do so.

Guess what, most people can't make money from their businesses. You're not entitled to have a successful business. So what? This is irrelevant. We're talking about the definition of a word that we can look up in the dictionary.

> The only place I've ever seen anyone pretend that "open source" can legitimately mean something other than the OSI's definition is on this forum.

Being terminally online is not an excuse for not being able to open a dictionary. It isn't an excuse for understanding that the rest of the world does not think identically to you. Go touch some grass and talk with people offline. I guarantee you that they will confuse these words. Even if we assumed "bad faith actors" caused this, well if Taco John's can lose "Taco Tuesday" and if Bayer can lose "aspirin" then OSI can lose "Open Source," and I honestly don't care. Words mean what people use them to mean. Having access to the source is a valid and extremely reasonable interpretation of the words "Open source".

I am not calling OSI a bad faith actor, but I am calling you one. Being unwilling to recognize that it is possible to confuse these meanings simply through plain literacy isn't only inane, but delusional. The reason people like me get so upset/frustrated about this is because it is like trying to prove to someone that the sky exists. We can see it, it is right there. Being obstinate isn't doing you any good. Saying I'm tricking you or there's a witch hunt isn't helping you either. Even if there was a grand conspiracy, as you have suggested, it would still be reasonable to call it the sky. The conspiracy wouldn't fucking work if it wasn't. So even that premise doesn't make a lick of sense.

Open a dictionary and talk to some people.

[0] (in fairness, you have to click the thesaurus for available, but it is under "as in public" which is exactly what we're talking about) whhttps://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/open

[kiba]

Dictionaries/thesaurus just describe how words are used or were used by someone. It doesn't prescribe the correct usage of words.

The issue is that open source is a clear technical term that has a certain usage within the community. This caused confusion, especially since that is a specific definition that I grew up with, and existed before I was even born.

Calling it 'source available' caused none of the confusion.

[cttet]

'source available' also implies the case the source is only available upon request. e.g. Microsoft provided the full source code of Office to China, it is also "source available".

[memefrog]

Open source isn't a literal term. It doesn't mean "the source is open". That isn't how the English language works. It is a compound term with its own meaning just like any other.

[cttet]

So the questionis: how to determine the meaning of the words?

A. If you mean that there is some authority that can do that, what authority other than a dictionary?(not rhetorical question)

Alternatively, B. if you mean that there shouldn't be any authority that can define the meaning of the word. In this way you can't stop people to understand it as it's literal meaning and blame them.

[scrollaway]

> It doesn't matter one whit whether people can "pay the bills". It's totally irrelevant to the discussion. If you can't make money making open source software, then go get a job.

What a terrible fucking take.

First of all yes it matters. OSS developers not being able to pay their bills despite maintaining software used by trillion dollar corps has been in the news several times. It’s an ongoing issue and talked about a lot.

Second, “go get a job” is essentially “stop doing open source”. As in “I would rather have you write closed source software than source available/open core”.

This isn’t your decision to take. This isn’t your life to live. And this isn’t your culture to dictate.

Also, you live in a bubble if you think the majority of people give a crap about the OSI definition. I say this as someone who does give a crap (though not that big of one).

[kiba]

We should absolutely be finding business models that work for open source but not compromising the ethic of it, like open core.

It probably just won't make a ridiculous amount of money for open source developers. It's the tradeoff you have to make when deciding to write open source or proprietary software.

[godelski]

> We should absolutely be finding business models that work for open source but not compromising the ethic of it

I don't think anyone is arguing this. We're only arguing that "Source Available" is an extremely reasonable interpretation of the words "Open Source."

And I'll be honest, I don't see much of a difference between a Common Clause License and MIT. For the average person, they are functionally equivalent. I don't see this as a big deviation from the original ethics and goals but rather than it is an update because bad actors abused the openness.

[scrollaway]

Sure but I honestly disagree that open core compromises the ethics of open sourse.

It's just pragmatic. People are into open source for different reasons. I've been in it for almost two decades and it was always for the the benefits for learning, hackability, transparency, future-proofing, etc etc. All aspects which are perfectly preserved by open core.

[ezekg]

> Words mean what people use them as. I don't care what OSI says, OSS and SAS are the same thing.

I completely agree. I’ve avoided using the term “open source” where possible for my SAS, instead opting for word-play like “open, source-available”, but it was frustrating that I felt I even needed to do that to avoid backlash from the zealots. And I’ve loosened my reigns there a bit as well as time has gone by. I think it’s silly. I want to use “open source” because that’s what it is.

As an example, there’s no reason Elastic should have had to cave to OSI and start using “free & open” everywhere in place of “open source.” The reality is SAS licenses like ELv2 may not be “Open Source (tm)” but they sure as hell are “open source” to most people in our industry.

FOSS !== OSS.

[kiba]

It's very confusing when someone said it's open source when it isn't actually open source.

I quite literally grew up with the specific definition. If people decided to redefine open source software, then I'll need a new specific definition, because it's no longer useful or fit for the purpose.

[rerdavies]

Not sure that the definition was fit for purpose in the first place. A perfectly reasonable understanding of Open Source is that the source is open (whether conditions are attached or not).

And if you then object to conditions being attached to how you use it, perhaps you should also consider the onerous conditions imposed by the GPL license.

[kiba]

It wasn't reasonable to me that open source software just means only source code is available. If people insists that the way it should be used, then I would abandon the term for something else.

[supriyo-biswas]

Open source is a technical, well defined term. If your software is ultimately not open for certain fields of endeavor, I’m willing to accept that, but labeling as if it is, and then coming up with derogatory terms such as “zealot” for people pointing out this difference is dishonest.

[bruce511]

I use "shipped as source". My code is not "open" and I'm very careful never to label it as such in verbal or written communications.

I think the word "open" belongs to OSS, not proprietary code, and I would politely suggest and recommend, you never use that word to describe your offering. (Ditto "free" :)

[fastball]

Definitions are not static. If the majority of people who say "open source" mean "I can view the source, it is out in the open" vs the OSI definition, then the definition of the word is the former.

Just like how the word "hacker" meant one (generally positive) thing, then it meant computer criminal, and now it has come back to be somewhere in the middle.

Of course it is your right to fight for whichever definition you prefer, but the idea that anyone has a monopoly on the definition and can claim a term "doesn't mean that" is a bit silly.

[robertlagrant]

> Stop gatekeeping

It is open source, yes. But "stop gatekeeping" is a bad phrase. "Gatekeeping" is now a negative spin on "telling the difference between things", and thus worse than useless.

[LudwigNagasena]

> I don't care what Citizens United ruling said, corporations are not the same as people and we should distinguish them as such.

Every law system in the world distinguishes natural personhood from legal personhood. If you've heard somewhere that Citizens Unite ruling said that corporations and people are the same, you've been lied to and disinformed.

[csdreamer7]

> Charging for a commercial license is virtual closed-source. You have reinvented selling software, except with a “try before you buy” model that enables engineers to vet its utility first before paying, with free usage for non-profits (i.e. other non-profit devs).

You really do not understand what rights Open Source licenses give you. The GPL in particular really only affects you if you distribute it (a js library vs nginx). There is no 'non-profit' exception in the GPL.

> but you use the threat of legal action rather than API keys to enforce your rights. “Open Source” is in the name only.

Every software company has a license that governs it's use. I am pretty certain your company will use legal threats if it's source code got out or it's frontend code was being abused. There are likely legal clauses in your employment contract over the source code that you have signed.

[slondr]

Free as in free speech, not as in free beer. This has been a slogan of free software for decades. Charging money for your software is not in any way incompatible with open source.

[chii]

> Charging money for your software is not in any way incompatible with open source

of course not.

But nobody has successfully been able to charge for it, without additional things such as services/support etc.

[chaxor]

The main important part of open source, regardless of license, is that you have the ability to run it locally to ensure that the code written and provided is what is used for your interaction with the code (since obviously a company or entity can lie and provide code that is different than what is used as the SaS. Tailscale and Headscale come to mind.

[cttet]

> “Open Source” is in the name only.

Hard to imagine this can be upvoted to this high.

"Open Source" just means that the source code is open, not closed.

Some people just like the source code to be open (e.g. for security reasons to examine the source code.).

It is just as simple as that.

[kiba]

Open source licenses are commercial licenses, full stop. It doesn't prevent for profit uses.

[mejutoco]

Open source has a specific meaning clarified in each license (like truffle, truffle-flavoured in food). Each license is unambiguous about what one is allowed to do.

Some licenses favor the freedom of the user, and some the freedom of the developer, in different degrees. It is not a "name only" thing, unless we insist on misinterpreting it.