[rowanseymour]

> Both aren't useful, but only one attempts to damage the common understanding of what "Open Source" means

We have a messaging flow building platform which is BSL. Anyone who wants to run their own instance is welcome to and people do and thus find it useful. The idea that the world would be better off if we made it closed source and prevented that... is just nonsense.

[cthalupa]

> Anyone who wants to run their own instance is welcome to and people do and thus find it useful. The idea that the world would be better off if we made it closed source and prevented that... is just nonsense.

How does making something closed source automatically mean someone can't run their own instance of it, even for free? Closed source does not mean 'You can only download this if you pay us', just as open source does not mean 'You can download this for free'

[rowanseymour]

Closed source doesn't preclude developers distributing it for free, BSL isn't claiming to be Open Source.. but it's silly to insist that that software that is *publically available* to anyone to download and run.. describe itself as "closed source".

[cthalupa]

It's source available. Which is not the same thing as open source.

[rowanseymour]

I don't think anyone is arguing that BSL is capital O Open Source, and even the BSL licence stressses that it is not an Open Source licence. But both "closed source" and "source available" feel like poor descriptors for a project that is developed in the open and takes PRs from outside contributors.

[iavael]

For this case there's already an old good word "proprietary" that covers everything that's not FOSS.

[pxc]

Enclosed-within-glass software

[rowanseymour]

But it's not just visible... you can submit a PR if you like, and people do.

[pxc]

That's true. I think the taxonomy I'd really endorse is that the dichotomy is between free software and proprietary software, and within each there are a range of restrictions/guarantees (depending on your PoV: user or developer) that licenses might have.

The broad distinction we care about within free software is copyleft vs. permissive, and one important one in proprietary software is source-available vs. closed-source.

Then besides all of that there are the non-licensing realities of how development is actually carried out, whether it is collaborative with outsiders, and with which outsiders...

The terms get harder because open/closed suggests straightforward opposites that partition all the options. But I'd characterize licenses like BSL and the Fair Source License as 'generous proprietary licenses with public source availability', but not open-source.

I have a feeling that the term 'open-source' is more likely to erode than 'free software', in the coming decades. We'll see, I guess.

[rowanseymour]

I'd agree with that and honestly I don't really care too much how our stuff is described except that it seems inaccurate and unfair to apply something like "closed source" to a BSL project that takes PRs, and to insist that only code released an OSI licence can be of benefit to the world.

[ewan-mclean]

> The broad distinction we care about within free software is copyleft vs. permissive

You are exactly correct about this.

1. Open-Source is a "Marketing Program for Free-Software". You describe yourself as having the "free-software" world view (which I describe as an anti-developer property worldview).

See: You can find OSI describe itself as a "Marketing Program for Free-Software" in their original FAQ: https://web.archive.org/web/20010406183942/http://opensource...

> The terms get harder because open/closed suggests straightforward opposites that partition all the options.

2. Again, you are exactly correct. By erroneously choosing term that is generic, that was already in use, and that can't be trademarked, the OSI set itself up for a loosing battle as "the universal standard" for what is not "closed-source".

GENERIC/DESCRIPTIVE: "We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark “open source”; the mark is too descriptive. Ironically, we were partly a victim of our own success in bringing the “open source” concept into the mainstream. So “Open Source” is not and cannot become a trademark.

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

ALREADY IN USE: There are many documented uses of "open source" in relation to software that is not closed-source, going all the way back to 1985. https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage

> But I'd characterize licenses like BSL and the Fair Source License as 'generous proprietary licenses with public source availability', but not open-source.

As a person with a self-defined affiliation with free-software, it makes complete sense that you would see it this way, but how many people outside of the free-software group see that? The further someone is from self-affiliation with "free-software" surely the less likely they are to agree with this terminology.

> I have a feeling that the term 'open-source' is more likely to erode than 'free software', in the coming decades. We'll see, I guess.

I 100% agree with you. The OSI postulates a union between the interests of people who release software into the public domain, and the interests of people like yourself who believe in Free-Software.

In my view, there is nothing uniting these two groups and the fracture is 100% inevitable. Even if your preferred term `source-available` were to gain widespread acceptance/use, there is no reason for independent developers to subsidize big business by making their source free to use for those big businesses, unless the developers ideologically agree with the tenants of the free-software movement. However, if the developers agreed with the free-software movement, they would choose a GPL style license, not a MIT/BSD/Apache style public domain license.