undefined | Better HN

0 pointsFnoord8y ago0 comments

It isn't "a different way than I do"; its different from both the defacto meaning of the term open source, and it isn't according to OSI. That makes calling such open source deceiving, just like calling shared source open source would be deceiving. Seen enough of that shit to stick to frameworks such as OSI-approved (which is more liberal than FSF or DFSG so it could be even more strict ie. we're being generous).

0 comments

2 comments · 1 top-level

Dylan168078y ago· 1 in thread

"shared source" doesn't let you use the code yourself. CC-NC gives you the exact same rights to use/modify/redistribute that you got the code under.

The OSI approves licenses with various restrictions on them, such as displaying authorship, or reciprocation, or patent grants. I haven't seen any reason to categorize a noncommercial restriction as fundamentally different. The noncommercial clause is a huge issue because of how vague it is, but that's a different topic entirely.

Also, using the OSI list as the ultimate reference isn't appropriate in the first place. They only approve licenses that are designed for software. I think almost everyone would agree that CC-BY and GFDL are open source licenses, despite them not being on that list.

FnoordOP8y ago

"various restrictions on them, such as displaying authorship, or reciprocation, or patent grants."

Those are for the greater good. Saying you are not allowed to use the source code for commercial reasons is discrimination and that isn't allowed according to OSI. I'm cool if you don't wanna use OSI as a rule of thumb; but then my alternatives are FSF's free software definition, or DFSG.

We're discussing source code; so whether something is OSS or not refers to open source software; OSS. The last S is usually omitted, but it still refers to open source software.

> I think almost everyone would agree that CC-BY and GFDL are open source licenses, despite them not being on that list.

These have nothing to do with open source. They might be in the spirit of open source at best (in the situation of GDFL and text), but that's it. Documentation cannot be open source, and GDFL can actually be harmful in that context.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse