[pydry]

There is zero practical difference between "free and source available" and "open source" for 99.99% of users.

I do wonder sometimes why some people get so particular about drawing this specific distinction because it happens on so many threads. Is the freedom to run a competitor to sentry's saas using the code they wrote that coveted a freedom?

I can see why Bezos wants this, perhaps. And by extension wealthy big tech shareholders eating that profit too.... but who else?

Moreover, "Source available" (a suggested alternative) implies the software is potentially or even likely to be paid which is material difference for those 99.9% of users but is definitely not the case.

I get the sense that there is an underlying political ax being ground by gatekeeping this particular definition. I dont buy that this is about "just calling things by their name" when for non-bezos users the distinction is inconsequential.

[vitiral]

The difference is the freedom to modify, fix, and even fork for yourself if the need arises.

[ezekg]

You obviously know nothing of the licenses you're discussing. It's so frustrating to see this fallacy repeated over and over. SSPL, ELv2, BUSL, and FSL are all forkable. Most even more so than GPL!

[vitiral]

I was referring to no license. I was referring to this statement

> There is zero practical difference between "free and source available" and "open source" for 99.99% of users.

"Free and source available" is not a license. Without a license it is copyrighted.

[pydry]

"Open source" is not a license either.

"Free and source available" describes a group of licenses including sentry's.

[vitiral]

Okay, but "open source" implies you can change and fork the code. "Free and source available" does not, even if you can in some cases.

That's literally all I said.

[pydry]

It sounds like you are agreeing with me that if you can do that then it's not misleading to call those licenses open source.

[pydry]

That is not the difference. You can do all of that with sentry.