Comment by bruce511

1 year ago

>> The SQLite3 business model is that SQLite3 is open source

This is going to sound pedantic, but SQLite is not Open Source. It's Public Domain. The distinction is subtle, but it is important.

46 comments

bruce511

Reply
jasode  1 year ago

>This is going to sound pedantic, but SQLite is not Open Source. It's Public Domain.

Well, there are 2 different modes of communication:

(1) official language-lawyer pedantic communication: "open source" != "public domain"

(2) conversational casual chitchat : "open source" includes "public domain"

Yes, the SQLite home page does say "public domain". However, when people interview SQLite create, Richard Hipp, he himself calls it "open source". He also doesn't correct others when they also call it "open source". Excerpt of R Hipp:

  So, I thought, well, why can't I have a database that just
  reads directly off the disc? And I looked around and
  there were none available. I thought, “oh, I'll just write
  my own, how hard can that be?” Well, it turns out to be
  harder than you might think at first, but I didn't know
  that at the time. But we got it out there and I just put it
  out as open source. And before long, I started getting
  these phone calls from the big tech companies of the
  day, like Motorola and AOL, and, “Hey, can you
  support this?”, and “Sure!” And it's like, wow, you can
  make money by supporting open source software?

https://sigmodrecord.org/publications/sigmodRecord/1906/pdfs...

  • znpy  1 year ago

    > (2) conversational casual chitchat : "open source" includes "public domain"

    it's wrong though. like, can't be more wrong than that. you can't do whatever you want with open source software, the license tells what you can and cannot do.

    with public domain software you can do most things.

    • w4  1 year ago

      Open source means just that: that the source is open. The OSI and co. re-defining the term to suit their ideological preferences doesn’t really change that. SQLite is open source, even if it’s not Open Source.

      Edit: FSF should have been OSI, I think. Fixed.

      4 replies →

  • PenisBanana  1 year ago

    > conversational casual chitchat : "open source" includes "public domain"

    No. What are you talking about? They are not related... other than for people virtually completely new to, well, open source.

    You are also completely confused, here, too:

    > Yes, the SQLite home page does say "public domain". However, when people interview SQLite create, Richard Hipp, he himself calls it "open source". He also doesn't correct others when they also call it "open source".

    They are different things. A project can be both; a person can talk about these two aspects of one project.

    • rcxdude  1 year ago

      This quickly gets into the details of definitions, but I think by most people's definitions of 'open source', something that is 'public domain' qualifies as such (see also 'source available' or 'copyleft/free software', one of which is not quite open source and the other is a more restrictive kind of open source. 'permissive' licenses like MIT and similar are closer to public domain but are different to varying degrees of technicality: one of the main problems with 'public domain' is that it's not universally accepted that there's any means to deliberately place a copyrightable work into it, so something like sqlite where the authors are not long dead is not actually public domain according to many jusrisdictions)

      1 reply →

wongarsu  1 year ago

It's a difference only insofar that in many jurisdictions their claim that it's public domain has no legal value. If it was truly public domain (e.g. if the authors were long dead) it would be open source. But far from all places allow you to arbitrarily put things in the public domain.

I'm a bit puzzled why SQLite doesn't solve this trivial issue by claiming the code is CC0-licensed. CC0 is made just for that: a very wordy way to make it as close to public domain as possible in each jurisdiction.

On the other hand, hobbyists won't care. As long as you trust them in their intention to have it open source they won't sue you for infringement either. And if as a company you need more assurance than "it's public domain" they are so nice to sell you a fancy legally-satisfying piece of paper for an undisclosed price. It's a subtle but clever way to get income from users with too much money

  • Aloisius  1 year ago

    SQLite didn't just say, "it's public domain."

    They explicitly state, "Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means."

    One can buy a "license" if one's company is run by idle lawyers: https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license

    • callingbull  1 year ago

      > They explicitly state, "Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means."

      It's not clear this is a license grant rather than legal advice (which would be correct legal advice if the code were public domain, but it is not).

callingbull  1 year ago

> It's Public Domain.

Is it though? The website does say "All of the code and documentation in SQLite has been dedicated to the public domain by the authors" but copyright law has no exception for "dedications" to the public domain. At best the authors are estopped from bringing suit but even that is unclear.

  • Rendello  1 year ago

    Companies can buy licences if they're uncomfortable with the Public Domain dedication:

    [quote]

    Licenses are available to satisfy the following needs:

        * You want indemnity against claims of copyright infringement.
    * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain.
    * You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of authors to dedicate their work to the public domain.
    * You want to hold a tangible legal document as evidence that you have the legal right to use and distribute SQLite.
    * Your legal department tells you that you have to purchase a license.

    [end quote]

    https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license

    • callingbull  1 year ago

      They could have CC0 licensed the code or they could have said they would not enforce their copyright. They did neither. SQLite is closed source. The "dedication" (which has no legal effect, what does it even mean?) encourages widespread adoption and big players are spooked into paying for a license (or "warranty of title"). That's quite a strategy.

cryptonector  1 year ago

open source != Open Source. If I had meant the latter I would have written Open Source, but I wrote open source because I meant the former.

How's that for being pedantic?

  • froh  1 year ago

    not helpful.

    capitalization is not bearing meaning in these contexts.

    open source means OSI compliant, broadly speaking, and licensed as such.

    in contrast, public domain doesn't exist in some jurisdictions, which is why sqlite as a company had to create an option to provide an official license. which they found so annoying that they charged a sweet fee to send a signed printed letter...

thih9  1 year ago

Details if anyone is interested: https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source

  • IshKebab  1 year ago

    They don't own the words "open source" no matter how much they might like to.

    > “Open Source” describes a subset of free software that is made available under a copyright license approved by the Open Source Initiative as conforming with the Open Source Definition.

    No it doesn't. It describes software whose source is "open" which is generally understood to mean that you can read, modify and reuse the code for free.

    Public domain definitely fits that. The "public domain doesn't exist in some countries" arguments are spurious as far as I can tell.

wmf  1 year ago

Public domain is a form of open source.

  • thih9  1 year ago

    No. At least according to the Open Source Initiative, public domain is not open source: https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source

    • otterley  1 year ago

      It is absolutely true that a work can be in the public domain and not have source available (or even contributable). But that doesn't really matter to most people. The question for most people is not whether something is open source, but whether they can copy and make use of a work without being held liable for copyright infringement. SQLite happens to be both public domain and open-source to an extent (i.e., source available).

      Conversely, open source doesn't necessarily mean "free to use without encumbrance." There are many open-source licenses that forbid certain uses (e.g. Business Source License). On the other hand, a work in the public domain is free to be used by all without restriction.

      A better analysis of open source vs. public domain would be in the form of a square, where one dimension would be the right to use the work, and the other dimension would be the ability to obtain and contribute source code.

      4 replies →

    • quotemstr  1 year ago

      Any definition of open source that doesn't include the public domain is out of touch with how real people use the words "open source" and is therefore useless. You can make up any definition you want, but if you insist on calling elephants "bananas", I'm not going to take you seriously

      12 replies →

  • cryptonector  1 year ago

    Yes, public domain is a form of open source, but not of Open Source (for reasons that IMO are silly).