I have always had to treat different licenses differently. BSD, MIT, LGPL, GPL, AGPL, Apache, etc. They all mean different things which have impact on how and where I might place them.
Subdividing "source available" as implied but not well defined in this article, into its own group does not substantially help me. When someone describes a useful "open source" thing to me, one of my first questions is which license it is under, and that would be the same whether someone said "source available" or "open source".
Perhaps there's something more behind "punch in the gut", but I don't really know what that is. There's a link to a tweet about these projects being boosted under the open source term, but the tweet has little engagement: 20 project logos, 43 likes. Did it actually reach beyond direct customers? Did the term open source have any impact at all here?
Source-available has been called "Shared Source" as far back as the early 2000s. Open Source was specifically intended to include the usual "freedoms" of free software, using a less ambiguous term than "Free".
often depends who you ask, istr stallmans take on "open source" is that the term came into existence explicitly to dilute the free software movement and make space for evil companies to do evil things. if you were to buy this then it may continue from that logic that everything covered in the article is well labelled open source.
i don't really condone stallmans biased and divisive position on this, but it is exemplary of the kind of conversation we're wading into with opinions about what it means historically.
the term came into existence explicitly to dilute the free software movement and make space for evil companies to do evil things.
It did. That has nothing to do with whether Open Source Software refers to software that uses an OSI approved license. It's the people trying to cloud a technical term with a dictionary meaning in order to be parasitic on FOSS without being FOSS who are being divisive, not people using the terms normally. Stallman isn't doing that.
if you were to buy this then it may continue from that logic that everything covered in the article is well labelled open source.
I mean, this is just nonsense. Stallman says Open Source is bad, therefore everything bad is Open Source?
Comments
I have always had to treat different licenses differently. BSD, MIT, LGPL, GPL, AGPL, Apache, etc. They all mean different things which have impact on how and where I might place them.
Subdividing "source available" as implied but not well defined in this article, into its own group does not substantially help me. When someone describes a useful "open source" thing to me, one of my first questions is which license it is under, and that would be the same whether someone said "source available" or "open source".
Perhaps there's something more behind "punch in the gut", but I don't really know what that is. There's a link to a tweet about these projects being boosted under the open source term, but the tweet has little engagement: 20 project logos, 43 likes. Did it actually reach beyond direct customers? Did the term open source have any impact at all here?
Source-available has been called "Shared Source" as far back as the early 2000s. Open Source was specifically intended to include the usual "freedoms" of free software, using a less ambiguous term than "Free".
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=Shared%2...
often depends who you ask, istr stallmans take on "open source" is that the term came into existence explicitly to dilute the free software movement and make space for evil companies to do evil things. if you were to buy this then it may continue from that logic that everything covered in the article is well labelled open source.
i don't really condone stallmans biased and divisive position on this, but it is exemplary of the kind of conversation we're wading into with opinions about what it means historically.
e.g. https://www.cmpod.net/all-transcripts/history-open-source-fr... under "A Surreal Situation"
It did. That has nothing to do with whether Open Source Software refers to software that uses an OSI approved license. It's the people trying to cloud a technical term with a dictionary meaning in order to be parasitic on FOSS without being FOSS who are being divisive, not people using the terms normally. Stallman isn't doing that.
I mean, this is just nonsense. Stallman says Open Source is bad, therefore everything bad is Open Source?