[xenago]

> charge companies while making tools for individual devs open source

Stop using the term Open Source. It's not open source if you apply restrictions like this, it's pretty easy to see that you're being disingenuous. These licenses are not OSI approved.

[sqs]

I am referring to Apache 2 here. We license a subset of stuff (a smaller subset after this change, but still all of client/cody*) as Apache 2.

[chungy]

Apache 2 doesn't require that companies are charged. It's proper open source (meets all the criteria of the Open Source Definition).

[sqs]

Yeah, and we aren’t charging companies for our Apache 2 code. We have some open source (Apache 2) code, and some non-open-source code.

[tremon]

Apache 2 also doesn't forbid companies being charged.

[dahart]

I’m a fan of OSI, and their definition of “open source” is widely recognized, but still, language policing usually turns out to be incorrect. OSI didn’t invent the term open source, and like it or not, other definitions do exist that don’t meet OSI’s standards. The term doesn’t belong to any one organization. I don’t understand the confrontational stance either, with code being offered to individuals. That far exceeds what most companies do, in terms of serving the open source community, no?

[type0]

Open source concept existed before OSI, it has originated from Debian Free Software Guidelines. OSI has only standardised it. To claim something else is disingenuous and at this point it's proven to be a robust definition. FSF has their own, older and not too dissimilar.

> other definitions do exist that don’t meet OSI’s standards. The term doesn’t belong to any one organization.

And all attempts to redefine what open source means fail, because both FOSS camps OSI and FSF/GNU as well as everyone in between see it for what it is: attempts to muddy the water in order to deceive users and customers. Your software is either FOSS or it's not, there is no scale here, it's a social contract. Just because there are a bunch of ambiguous licenses that no-one knows what to make of, doesn't mean there are two or more concepts. There's only one concept for both "open source" and "free software" and the difference is philosophical.

[dahart]

Nobody tried to redefine “open source” here in this thread. @xenago jumped to an incorrect conclusion.

> There’s only one concept for both “open source” and “free software”

Well neither OSI nor FSF agree with this statement. You’re on your own there.

[mod50ack]

The term doesn't belong to the OSI. But the basic tenets of the OSI definition are very important to devs. And source being available but not able to be legally reused makes it useless for the vast majority of FOSS projects.

[dahart]

I agree. I’m not arguing against the value or the stature of OSI’s definition at all, I’m only reacting to the demand to never say the words “open source” unless you mean OSI’s definition. The Robustness Principle applies to language; be conservative in what you say, and liberal in what you hear. It’s fine to point out when a license or particular software isn’t OSI-approved open source. It’s fine to ask if people mean OSI when they say “open source” without a qualifier. It’s fine to add a qualifier too.

[mod50ack]

There is a difference between strictly following the OSI definition and the general idea of "open source." For instance, while "open source" and "free software" are effectively interchangeable category definitions, there are some minor technical reasons why the FSF definition allows a few licenses the OSI definition doesn't and vice versa. If we were talking about "oh, this is accepted by the FSF as free software, but not by the OSI as open source," then OK, sure. And you could go on with Debian and Fedora approvals and so on.

But we're not talking about technicalities here. We're talking about the vey basic idea of what it means to be "open source." I'm not telling anyone that they can't use words however they want. They can. But the way they're using the term "open source" is just fundamentally incompatible with how the vast majority of people in the field use it. So it's at the very least going to cause some confusion to use the term "open source" in the way they are.

Besides, I think people have a bigger problem with the licensing change itself than any wordsmithery.

[dahart]

> I’m not telling anyone that they can’t use words however they want. They can.

It sounds like we are in full agreement, and you’re with me that @xenago’s demand to not use the phrase might be overstepping a little bit, no? Isn’t this confusion easier to clear up with a single short question than with assumptions or demands?

There is a slight problem with claiming using “open source” is confusing to the people who know about OSI. To the lay person who’s not a software developer, “open source” does mean ‘source is visible’, and “free software” does mean ‘software that costs no money’ (and these definitions are included in dictionaries and Wikipedia, next to the OSI and FSF versions). The OSI and FSF definitions are terms of art that these orgs are trying to establish and control, and they deviate from what the literal words alone imply, both in meaning and level of specificity, therefore they will always be confusing to people who are neither developers nor lawyers. Wouldn’t it be better if FSF and OSI relied not on co-opting everyday words, but having phrases that are more obviously terms of art and more obviously attached to the orgs? Even something as simple as “OSI Open Source” or “FSF Free Software” would go a long way. OSI does on it’s site use “OSD - Open Source Definition” quite a bit.

[type0]

> To the layperson who’s not a software developer, “open source” does mean ‘source is visible’, and “free software” does mean ‘software that costs no money’

Source available is the correct term. Laymen who don't know any better often call shareware open source as well; they don't know how the software is made and don't care. That is not a good reason to use incorrect words.

[mod50ack]

No, we don't agree at all.

The whole point is that they are trying to use the words "open source" to appeal specifically to people, like those here in this thread, who work on free and open source software in the FSF/OSI sense.

This is a message for the exact group of people who use the term of art because they're practitioners of that art.

[lmm]

> I’m a fan of OSI, and their definition of “open source” is widely recognized, but still, language policing usually turns out to be incorrect.

I'm no fan of the OSI, but language policing usually turns out to be correct. There are other definitions of open source - the free software definition, the DFSG - but in practice they're all close enough that the differences don't matter.

> OSI didn’t invent the term open source, and like it or not, other definitions do exist that don’t meet OSI’s standards.

Very few. I don't think there's any nontrivial software that doesn't meet the OSI's standards but is recognised as open-source by anyone who isn't a) a paid shill or b) a self-important provocateur who wrote it.

> I don’t understand the confrontational stance either, with code being offered to individuals. That far exceeds what most companies do, in terms of serving the open source community, no?

Companies are trying to salami-slice away the rights users expect from open-source software. The response to that has to be a firm line in the sand.

[delfinom]

Nobody die and made OSI king of open source.

[segmondy]

open source simply means you can read the source. It doesn't have to be free.

[mst]

The usual term for that is 'source available.'

'Open source' generally gets read to mean 'available under an OSI or OSI-like license', and 'free software' as 'available under the GPL or a GPL-like license' IME - if the license is commercial only but the code's still freely -readable- albeit not freely -runnable- then 'source available' is clearer.

(note that sqs clarifies elsewhere in the thread that 'open source' was being used to refer to the stuff that's (still) Apache 2 licensed, not the source available parts)

[bitwize]

Again.

Free software is largely coterminous with open source. Even Stallman uses the term 'copylefted software' to refer to software under a so-called copyleft license -- one which, like the GPL, forbids license changes upon redistribution. Stallman will tell you that he'd rather your free software be copylefted, but it doesn't have to be.

You're right about source-available though. It's what we used to call 'shared source', after a failed attempt by Microsoft to promote that as an alternative to the viral, cancer-like open source.

[grayhatter]

You seem to be confused about the common meaning of open source. Open Source only means the source code is available. It doesn't mean it's license or TOS is also open. That's why the acronyms FOSS and FLOSS exist as well.

[reedciccio]

Open Source has a very clear meaning in the context of IT, understood by developers and lawyers, judges and policy makers alike: it means that the code is distributed with a license approved by the Open Source Initiative.

[rat9988]

Open Source Initiative is not an authority here. We had this debate many many times. You may not agree with this point of view, but let's not make it as if yours is the universal one.

[bryant]

> Open Source Initiative is not an authority here. We had this debate many many times. You may not agree with this point of view, but let's not make it as if yours is the universal one.

It practically is, and they've done a good job of gathering the relevant citations to make that point.

https://opensource.org/authority/

If you're passionately against this, feel free to make the relevant edit here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitio... (but you may have to have a litany of citations to justify why the OSI definition is not a de facto standard if you want it to stick).

[prepend]

I’ve heard this line before and it confuses me. What is the authority?

It seems to me that it’s OSI (around for years, reputable, etc) vs some for profit companies misusing common terminology in the, I think false, sense that people think non-open things they call open are good. Not sure if they are deluded or just wrong.

Happy to talk about some new authority for open source licenses, but it seems like the “OSI isn’t an authority, nobody is” is an argument by 8th graders who just read the Wikipedia article on communism.

OSI formed to help open source developers and users to better understand “proper” licenses from bullshit.

[eudoxus]

But "Open Source" both as a term and idea pre-dates the OSI's formation. The general definition of "Open Source" shouldn't be universally defined by a single body.

The OSI has done a great job at introducing a legally ratified and globally recognized license format to help reduce uncertainty, but it is not, and has on several occasions been denied[0], the global authority on the definition of Open Source. They have a trademark and are the authority for "Open Source Initiative Approved License" (ie: "OSI License") specifically.

[0]: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...

[prepend]

Of course it predates the formation of OSI. OSI didn’t invent the term, it’s just a group of people who formed to formalize and help adoption.

It’s not like there’s some competing definition. OSI has been around for 20+ years and only recently did a few companies decide they want a different definition so they can make more money.

But the issue isn’t that there’s some word police. The issue is that open source has a definition in use and when people try to overload, it gets confusing. I wish people wouldn’t do that, but it’s free country (free as in speech, not free as in beer).

No one cares if source is “open” in that people can view it. In that case windows is “open.” The important part of open is the ability to change, reuse, and participate.

Why would anyone care if source is visible but not usable? I’ve been able to decompile forever. I can see the source if I need to. The community and reuse aspect is important.

Finally, OSI doesn’t define the term. They just certify licenses that adhere to open source principles and ideas. The community defines the term. Everyone is free to make up new licenses. OSI just helps the community filter out noise by reviewing licenses that actually are open source.

[tremon]

"Source" also was a term and idea predating the first ever computer source code. Definitions can change.

[ddingus]

Exactly right!

[Aeolun]

It’s not about the OSI. They just happen to have a convenient list that everyone agrees on.

[Patrickmi]

Open source doesn’t mean active authority, because you have the source code doesn’t you have some level of control on the repo that the source code is being host, having Go source code doesn’t mean you have the right to just commit into the Golang repo without checks and decisions

[type0]

> just commit into the Golang repo without checks and decisions

Oh, but you can, just do it in your fork. You can't claim their trademark but that's a completely different thing.

[strus]

I am pretty sure that for most developers open source = source code available, and nothing else.

Anegdotally I have been a professional dev for 10 years and this is the first time I hear your definition of open source.

[wheels]

That's probably because you've only been a professional developer for 10 years. Here's a quick history lesson:

If we go back, say, 25 years, when the term Open Source entered common usage, it was a way of describing the things that had thusfar been labeled "free software", but as a way of deemphasizing the notion of the Free Software movement that saw non-free-software as immoral. It was a term to describe things that met the Free Software Definition, but without harping on morality.

It was very much a counter-culture (it was, after all, the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement), and very much not a generic term for having access to the source. That was already super common in enterprise agreements, and nobody considered that to be open source.

Then around the early 2000s, Linux became hot shit, and some large companies wanted to avail themselves to the rising tide and began labeling their watered down versions of "source available" things as open source in an attempt to jump on the bandwagon. But that was an intentional attempt to water down the definition everyone already understood for marketing reasons.

You not knowing this history means that to some extent the marketing worked. But just realize that in arguing here, you're participating in the astroturfing. Also, get off my lawn!

[therealdrag0]

Love it.

But I’m also in the camp that didn’t know this history and had a softer definition of “open source”. That’s just how language changes, shrug.

[wheels]

I'm also often an advocate of what you're saying there, "language changes..."

But this I think is one of those cases where there is a difference, because it's also descriptive of a community, and it matters how that community sees itself. With whatever definition of open source you have, the most high traction stuff that we all rely on (I originally wrote, "most", but I think e.g. the Linux kernel matters more than a random abandoned repo on Github) is produced by people that use that older definition of open source, and mostly by people who identify with that social movement. (I for a long time was one of those people.) In this case I do believe that in that all of us now rely on open source software, that redefining it in opposition to the group of people who produce that thing is less than respectful.

[thayne]

Anecdotally, I've also been a professional dev for over 10 years, and have been involved with open source projects longer than that. And in my experience, "open source" almost always means you are free to modify and redistribute from the source (possibly with a requirement that you also release the code for your changes, in the case of the GPL). The exceptions are mostly companies that want to claim they are open source for marketing, without actually following the spirit of open source.

[type0]

> for most developers open source = source code available

I'm pretty sure it's not, unless by developer you mean land developers and not software devs

[djur]

What's an example of "open source" software you've used that matches that description?

[Plasmoid]

You're referring to source available licenses. These range from the nearly open like Mongo or ElasticSearch to the almost totally closed like Windows or Solaris.

They're not inherently bad licenses but they aren't open source.

[altairprime]

“Open Source” is a proper noun defined by OSI, not to be confused with the general phrase “open source” which predates OSI. You use both interchangeably in your reply, which is invalid (apples/oranges). Please be more specific: do you mean the OSI definition or the pre-OSI colloquialism?

[dizhn]

I've heard the term "source available" for that. Nowadays they also have "open core" which means you can't do shit with the source you do get. But that's another thing entirely.

[satvikpendem]

> Open Source only means the source code is available

No, that's "source available." If there is no open source license, then it is not open source.

[ezekg]

The readers may not like it, but you're not actually wrong. Go ask 100 developers if BSL or ELv2 are open source and the majority of them will say that it is -- because the source code is available, and for the majority of users, these licenses are less restrictive than AGPL. Not Open Source (tm*), but open source -- FOSS vs OSS.

(I do understand that Solargraph is now using a proprietary enterprise license, so this comment is directed at the OP mentioning "OSI approved" licenses, not at Solargraph's new license.)

* it ain't trademarked.

[smarx007]

That's why there a separate term for what you are describing, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

[ezekg]

I'm on mobile and with family today so I can't respond in-depth (happy independence day!), but have ever wondered why the term "source-available" has changed meaning, yet the term "open-source" is not 'allowed' to? (And I'd argue it already has, much to the OSI's dismay.)

The term source-available has been shoehorned to mean everything-not-OSI-approved, instead of what it used to mean: a proprietary license for a project that has its source available (e.g. Sourcegraph's license).

In reality, "open source is a broad software license that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent restrictions on the use and modification of the code." Which is the definition the majority of developers would say is open source.

The ELv2 and most uses of BSL fall under the "relaxed restrictions" on use and modification, similar to GPL. I'd argue they are open source.

[djur]

Why doesn't Elasticsearch B.V. refer to their software as "open source", then? They refer to it as "free and open" in their marketing, so obviously they think the idea is appealing to their customers. They refer to Logstash as "open source" and specifically to the fully Apache 2.0-licensed version as the "-oss" build.

Users of the BSL refer to it as a "source-available" license that, after a period of time, converts into an "open source" license:

https://www.couchbase.com/blog/couchbase-adopts-bsl-license/

[ezekg]

It's literally just word-play, dancing around what they actually mean. I'd assume because of pressure from OSI and friends (i.e. bad publicity), not from the real world. The same reason my company is "open, source-available."

[type0]

> In reality, "open source is a broad software license that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent restrictions on the use and modification of the code."

Not to the general public, only to the users doesn't have to be generally available to the public, see recent RHEL PR debacle. It's not about the restrictions it's about what you are allowed to do with the code.

> ... Which is the definition the majority of developers would say is open source.

Can you prove your claim has anyone done demographics on this?

[ezekg]

All my evidence is anecdotal, based on talking to my users. But that'd be a great topic for developer survey.

Also, I'm quoting Perens' definition of open source.

[skyzyx]

Before this moment, I had referred to it as “transparent source” — you can look, but cannot touch.

[ezekg]

But that's not at all what the ELv2, SSPL, or BSL licenses say. At many times, they're more permissive than GPL.