undefined | Better HN

0 pointsxigoi3mo ago0 comments

They are using “open source” as a generic descriptor, not as the unregistered trademark of the OSI.

0 comments

Yes, and that is the problem. That "descriptor" is not correct. The correct descriptor is "source available".

xigoiOP3mo ago

The descriptor is correct. The source is available to you, free of charge, and you can do anything with it as long as you extend the same rights to your users.

mirzap3mo ago

Yes, I agree that "source available" is an accurate description. Unlike "Open Source" licenses, which have no restrictions, "O'saasy" does not allow you to do "anything" you want. Adding a clause like "but you can't compete with us" makes it incompatible with OSS licenses.

I am fine with licensing your code as you wish, but I will always oppose attempts to redefine the widely understood and established meaning of "open source" that has been in place for over 30 years. You don't get to change its definition.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

mirzap3mo ago

Yes, and that is the problem. That "descriptor" is not correct. The correct descriptor is "source available".

xigoiOP3mo ago

The descriptor is correct. The source is available to you, free of charge, and you can do anything with it as long as you extend the same rights to your users.

mirzap3mo ago

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse