Giving the users source code and no rights to do anything with it really doesn't give them very much. Software freedom advocates are not just nerds who really enjoy reading source code. The point is that if you have the source code and the right to change it then you take control of the activity the software is doing, or helping you to do. If you don't have control, being able to read the source code is not very useful.
Well certainly there is some reasonable middle ground between everything and nothing, which is presumably what licenses like this one are trying to explore? People are afforded rights beyond just looking at it, they can run it, modify it, learn from it, there's just some specific things that are carved out (to my understanding as a layperson).
Every major voice that I've seen comment on this thus far seems to acknowledge the value and the rationale behind the license, they're just saying you can't call it open source.
Would you say that the "free software" and "open source" movements are largely synonymous? I guess I thought free software was a more strict subset that has the "all or nothing" philosophy centered around truly "free" software. Which is honorable and commendable. But is there really no room for stuff that's a little more gray area? I get the rug pull, I get that it's not truly owned by the community, but it still seems like a useful ally and a step in the right direction from fully closed source. With support there could be norms and culture developed to safeguard from bad behavior.
The context of what the software does should also be taken into account. The best arguments I've seen in this thread revolve around the idea that you can trust that you can pull an "open source" library into your project without hesitation. That is a beautiful "free as in libre" building blocks vision. But the software in question here is a completed end-user product. It's not ever intended to be used in another project. But they want to make some kind of good-faith effort to share and be more "open" than normal proprietary SaaS. Instead of this being a good thing it's a huge drama because it's not enough. At least that's my read.
> Would you say that the "free software" and "open source" movements are largely synonymous?
Would you say Canadians and Americans are largely synonymous? They have many shared interests. There are many dual citizens. The differences are subtle often.
> The best arguments I've seen in this thread revolve around the idea that you can trust that you can pull an "open source" library into your project without hesitation. That is a beautiful "free as in libre" building blocks vision.
Several people highlighted a key idea of open source and free software is you can run an open source program without hesitation. This was not beautiful? These arguments were inferior?
> But the software in question here is a completed end-user product. It's not ever intended to be used in another project.
Libraries used parts of programs. Programs became libraries. Programs evolved into different programs.
> But they want to make some kind of good-faith effort to share and be more "open" than normal proprietary SaaS. Instead of this being a good thing it's a huge drama because it's not enough. At least that's my read.
I don't know how the submitted article could have contradicted this more clearly.
Being able to fork a project when management turns hostile is one of the most effective ways GPL software protects itself from enshittification and corporate sabotage. Source available does nothing to prevent this.
This can also be true, say, of a dump of leaked Windows source code. Would you say that that's Open Source? Why not? What's different between that and Fizzy? Fizzy's creators will also sue you in certain cases.
> Why is it so important that they can use it for whatever they want?
It's important only in terms of the ethics of calling yourself open. The OSI (and many other commenters here, and me) are saying that open source should be defined by lack of restrictions on the usage; DHH etc. are saying that it should be defined by lack of restrictions on the access.
The reasons why I think usage-based definition rather than access-based definitions are more reasonable are:
- Providing access to code is relatively cheap/easy today. This wasn't always true in the past.
- Usage has a lot more variables than access. If you start putting restrictions on it, anyone using it has to stop and think about their usage to ensure it's not falling afoul of the restrictions. For example, if I put Fizzy on my server and provide free access to it for anyone on the internet without the 1000-item limit, does that qualify as "directly compet[ing] with the original Licensor by offering it to third parties as a hosted Cloud Service"? I would hope not, but if I want to make sure I have to pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars.
The leak is not open source because it was not blessed by the creators. If we're worried about rug pull stuff, maybe there's some type of governance or commitments that can be worked out. Ultimately yeah we're at the whim of the company, but that's the status quo, this still seems like a step in the right direction to be encouraged and fostered and not shit on. I just don't think the hardline strategy is really winning hearts and minds to the cause.
> If you start putting restrictions on it, anyone using it has to stop and think about their usage to ensure it's not falling afoul of the restrictions.
Is this really that ornery? In practice, with a license like this, are people doing benign things hunted down and hassled? The whole "I can do whatever I want and never get sued" angle kinda seems a little selfish or at least not super good-samaritan? I recall the brouhaha over the "don't do evil" license. Can't we find a good-faith agreement between interests?
Shit on, hardline, ornery, benign, selfish, good faith are loaded words. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine.[1]
> Ultimately yeah we're at the whim of the company, but that's the status quo, this still seems like a step in the right direction to be encouraged and fostered and not shit on. I just don't think the hardline strategy is really winning hearts and minds to the cause.
This is not the status quo in open source. And open source has been very successful. Open source is the status quo of much software.
Do you imagine many companies would make their proprietary programs source available if and only if they could call it open source? I do not.
> In practice, with a license like this, are people doing benign things hunted down and hassled?
Selling software as a service is benign in open source. And do you understand the question of if the license is good or acceptable and if the license should be called open source are different?
> I recall the brouhaha over the "don't do evil" license.
Your point was what?
> Can't we find a good-faith agreement between interests?
Anyone can use any license they want. Anyone can invent a new term if they consider common terms inadequate. Using a common term misleadingly intentionally and calling people triggered show bad faith.[2]
Why is it important to give "everything" to the users? They have the source code. Why is it so important that they can use it for whatever they want?