Comment by andrewshadura
2 years ago
You deny your users the most basic freedom there is, the freedom to use your software for any purpose without discrimination. This is wrong, and so is your attempt to misuse and redefine the term "open source software".
This is the second time today that someone mistakes open source and free software.
See: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
I don't blame you, it's a bit schadenfreude on my part because "open source" companies try to dress as free software but aren't
You replied to "You deny your users the most basic freedom there is, the freedom to use your software for any purpose without discrimination." and caim that open source isn't about that.
Let's see https://opensource.org/definition-annotated/, _the_ definition for open source, specifically the sections titled "No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups" and "No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor":
"The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons."
"The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research."
So what GP claimed seems to be exactly Open Source's point, no?
The way we crafted it is not clear. Our idea is straightforward: if you want to use the software, you can do so for free, whether for personal use or within an organization. However, if you aim to sell it for profit, you need to contribute to its creation in some way; this is why permission is required. At least, that's the case at this early stage.
4 replies →
Yes you are right. It's not even open source...
More specifically, their license doesn't meet these criteria of open source software (which are the same as the Debian free software guidelines):
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
No. Open source is the same as free software. It is a marketing term for free software, that defines the same concept in more practical terms. If you actually read the article you linked, you would have known that.
Open source is not the same as free software.
There are broadly two camps: Camp 1 who advocate for free software & free software alone, and Camp 2 who advocate for "open source" being an all-encompassing umbrella term for a few things, including free software. Those in Camp 1 are typically not supportive of the goals of those in Camp 2. Those in Camp 2 do often try and equivocate the two terms.
3 replies →
It's not, because Free Software handles practical and ethical advantages as an indivisible unit, while open source focus only on promoting practical advantages.
1 reply →
Which is the first time?
Any hacker news link?
> This is wrong
This is a highly subjective take - it might be better to stick to objective dictionary definitions.
This project clearly isn't open source, & shouldn't be advertised as such, but on the other hand the intent here is a common/popular one these days, & its not the first of its kind: I'm surprised no-one has yet coined a term for this relatively new breed of "faux-pen source" or whatever it is.
Fwiw I do think it has it's place - it's certainly more than preferable to all rights reserved.
Our idea is straightforward: if you want to use the software, you can do so for free, whether for personal use or within an organization. However, if you aim to sell it for profit, you need to contribute to its creation in some way; this is why permission is required. At least, that's the case at this early stage.