[ssddanbrown]

Another YC launch advertising as open source while using a non-osd-adhering license (ELv2 in this case). I respect your right to choose a license that protects your efforts, but calling this open source will be misleading to many.

[dang]

I put the word "open source" in the title, and am happy to change it if someone has a better term. (I'm not up on license subtleties.)

[ssddanbrown]

Thanks dang, "source available" is pretty common for licenses like the ELv2 used here.

[dang]

As more and more startups are going open source, source available, open core, etc., I need to figure out how to do Launch HNs without triggering off-topic controversies around the term "open source". My problem is, there's no consensus among HN readers about what the term means.

If anyone has a suggestion about how to solve this problem in an accurate and neutral way, I'd like to hear it.

[ayewo]

I understand your frustration.

IME, HN tends to use the term open source in two senses. It can either refer to:

- the license or;

- the business model.

And we know that licenses exist on a spectrum of permissive to restrictive.

So when the community is presented with a for-profit entity in a Launch/Show HN, they tend to dwell on the 2nd sense.

If it’s a side project that’s on display, then the 1st sense kicks in.

Based on this, I’d like to offer the following colloquial interpretations for the terms you mentioned.

1. Open source: permissive (or more correctly, well-known) licenses like MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL etc that do not prohibit commercial derivatives (or prevent cloud hyperscalers like AWS from using it).

2. Open core: our code is split into 2 parts: the open source bit (often under a permissive open source license in #1) to attract fellow devs and the closed source bit. The closed source bit is how we plan to make money.

3. Source available: we plan to make money however we see best so as insurance, our code can only be available under an obscure license that was designed to be restrictive.

So, I think what’s really happening is that labelling something “open source” will cause the community to quickly to point out that said license is restrictive.

[ayewo]

(Here is an example from another post on the frontpage where the community is engaging in the 1st sense on a side project: Show HN: Little Rat – Chrome extension monitors network calls of all extensions

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37122927 )

[dang]

Thanks! that's helpful. I've changed the wording to "open core" above.

[version_five]

OSI maintains a list of open source licenses which is as close to an industry consensus as you'll find. If a license is on that list I don't think many would say it's not open source.

https://opensource.org/licenses/

That's for software only, if it's an AI model all bets are off.

[sobkas]

First if you don't know what open source is, don't add that phrase to titles at random. Fact that it's launched with YC help doesn't actually help your case. Adding feel good phrase "open source" to benefit hand that feeds you is pathetic. Because right now damage is already done, many people saw and will associate Serra with open source, which it isn't.

Second if you are adding it, add definition you are using(not supported? then someone should implement it). Make sure that definition you are using factually describes license used. Don't use some fringe bs. as your definition, so you can crowbar it in every time you find it convenient.

[dang]

No one "knows" what the meaning of a disputed term is; it's disputed.

[nailer]

> My problem is, there's no consensus among HN readers about what the term means.

Open Source is defined here, by the people that invented the term: https://opensource.org/osd/

The vast majority of HN readers would support this over any other definition.

Anything that provides access to source but doesn't allow forks, commercial use, competition, removal of advertising, etc is 100% not open source.

[wildermuthn]

This comment would be more helpful if you could summarize the pitfalls of people relying upon ELv2. My impression of these variations is that they are generally used to protect themselves from a giant corp from using it to create a cloud service of some kind?

[illiliti]

There is no problem with people relying on ELv2 license. Just don't call your project open-source because ELv2 is not an open-source license.

[wolframhempel]

It is open source in the sense that the source is open, you can go and look at it. It's even free open source in the sense that you can take it and use in your own, commercial project without the need to compensate its authors.

The only limit is, that the project you're building with it can't be a hosted service version of the software itself - which is, what I assume, Serra's business model will be.

I don't think that "Open Source" just means Apache 2 and MIT licensed stuff - and infact feel, that the license Serra chose is one of the most generous OSS licenses that still retain just enough rights for the authors to make a living.

[rovr138]

https://opensource.org/osd/

> Introduction

> Open source doesn’t just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria

There’s a definition. This isn’t open source.

[wolframhempel]

And how does the OSI derive it's legitimacy as the steward for all things open source? As far as I am concerned, it is just one body with its own private viewpoint, not a universal lawmaker for all open source devs.

In general, while I appreciate the work of the OSI, I believe that they are too idealistic in their viewpoint, derived from the world of Linux and early OS.

In my view, if we want to maintain a healthy and growing open source ecosystem, we must allow the makers of great OSS to be sustainable and monetize their creation. I don't believe that that's an inherent conflict with the spirit of OSS.

[rovr138]

> And how does the OSI derive it's legitimacy as the steward for all things open source?

We give it to them.

OSI isn't an entity that's existed since the beginning and the original definition doesn't come from them.

I agree that it's not a space that doesn't change.

Having said that, change must come from the community. It can't be just a couple corporate entities defining their own license, calling it open source, and going against the established definition.

> In my view, if we want to maintain a healthy and growing open source ecosystem, we must allow the makers of great OSS to be sustainable and monetize their creation. I don't believe that that's an inherent conflict with the spirit of OSS.

I don't mind monetization don't get me wrong.

Should it change? I'm not the authority on it. I'm just saying it's not the current definition.

[Karunamon]

Usage determines definition, not the OSI.

At the end of the day, Pure Open Source™ modulo one very narrowly defined prohibited use is good enough for everyone except product managers at large public cloud companies and people who want to argue about ideological purity. It provides all of the same benefits.

[jauco]

I get what you’re saying. The term for that is “source available” though.

Open Source has a specific meaning to the people who frequent this site. And I get how YC companies a scrutinized more for vague and misleading promises.

What if someone said their app was free to use. And then somewhere far in the sign up flow, it turns out you are required to pay. And then the app developer claims “well, you’re free to use it, but you do have to pay”. It’s not that that sentence can’t mean what the developer says it does. But they should take into account what people will think it means.