Comment by badsectoracula
19 hours ago
These are not permissively licensed though, the terms "permissive license" has connotations that pretty much everyone who is into FLOSS understands (same with "open source").
I do not mind having a license like that, my gripe is with using the terms "permissive" and "open source" like that because such use dilutes them. I cannot think of any reason to do that aside from trying to dilute the term (especially when some laws, like the EU AI Act, are less restrictive when it comes to open source AIs specifically).
> I do not mind having a license like that, my gripe is with using the terms "permissive" and "open source" like that because such use dilutes them. I cannot think of any reason to do that aside from trying to dilute the term (especially when some laws, like the EU AI Act, are less restrictive when it comes to open source AIs specifically).
Good. In this case, let it be diluted! These extra "restrictions" don't affect normal people at all, and won't even affect any small/medium businesses. I couldn't care less that the term is "diluted" and that makes it harder for those poor, poor megacorporations. They swim in money already, they can deal with it.
We can discuss the exact threshold, but as long as these "restrictions" are so extreme that they only affect huge megacorporations, this is still "permissive" in my book. I will gladly die on this hill.
> Good. In this case, let it be diluted! These extra "restrictions" don't affect normal people at all,
Yes, they do, and the only reason for using the term “open source” for things whose licensing terms flagrantly defy the Open Source definition is to falsely sell the idea that using the code carries the benefits that are tied to the combination of features that are in the definition and which are lost with only a subset of those features. The freedom to use the software in commercial services is particularly important to end-users that are not interested in running their own services as a guarantee against lock-in and of whatever longevity they are able to pay to have provided even if the original creator later has interests that conflict with offering the software as a commercial service.
If this deception wasn't important, there would be no incentive not to use the more honest “source available for limited uses” description.
> I couldn't care less that the term is "diluted" and that makes it harder
It also makes life harder for individuals and small companies, because this is not Open Source. It's incompatible with Open Source, it can't be reused in other Open Source projects.
Terms have meanings. This is not Open Source, and it will never be Open Source.
> It also makes life harder for individuals and small companies, because this is not Open Source. It's incompatible with Open Source, it can't be reused in other Open Source projects.
I'm amazed at the social engineering that the megacorps have done with the whole Open Source (TM) thing. They engineered a whole generation of engineers to advocate not in their own self-interest, nor for the interest of the little people, but instead for the interest of the megacorps.
As soon as there is even the tiniest of restrictions, one which doesn't affect anyone besides a bunch of richiest corporations in the world, a bunch of people immediately come out of the woodwork, shout "but it's not open source!" and start bullying everyone else to change their language. Because if you even so much as inconvenience a megacorporation even a little bit it's not Open Source (TM) anymore.
If we're talking about ideals then this is something I find unsettling and dystopian.
I hard disagree with your "It also makes life harder for individuals and small companies" statement. It's the opposite. It gives them a competitive advantage vs megacorps, however small it may be.