Comment by pseudalopex
1 day ago
> 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.
> Would you say Canadians and Americans are largely synonymous? They have many shared interests. There are many dual citizens. The differences are subtle often.
What would source available be in this analogy?
> 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?
I think we're saying the same thing. Those are the arguments I was referring to.
> Libraries used parts of programs. Programs became libraries. Programs evolved into different programs.
I don't know what this means.
> I don't know how the submitted article could have contradicted this more clearly.
Which part?
An expanded analogy would not increase understanding I think. It would be better to ask and answer the question behind the analogy request probably.
Did we say the same thing? You suggested a library and a completed end-user product should be considered differently I thought. I suggested they should be considered similarly.
The title of the submitted article said it was okay source available is not open source. It said DHH's choice of license reacts to a real pressure in open source. It said source available was defensible and generous.
> An expanded analogy would not increase understanding I think.
Why not? Is there a better one? The relationship between open source and source available (and free software) is the core of what I'm trying to understand.
> You suggested a library and a completed end-user product should be considered differently I thought.
I suggested that later. I maybe should not have used library at that point. I'm not saying that they should fundamentally be considered differently. I'm just saying it might behoove the movement to be a little bit more welcoming, and guiding, of some of these gray area efforts.
Software licensing is fundamentally a social/political/legal "people" issue, not a mathematical/logical one. Clinging to a beautiful elegant mathematical rule that sticks it head in the sand w.r.t. the messy world of human behavior, while also claiming the moral high ground, is maybe what I feel is a bit of bad faith (or, more charitably, clashing ideologies that I feel could be united by finding a middle ground). I would also argue that there is somewhat more responsibility to show good faith on the side of the gatekeepers than the people being kept out.
> The title of the submitted article said it was okay source available is not open source.
When I said "huge drama" I was referring to the whole thing - the posts referenced by that article, the comments, the words that have been spilt on how many words have been spilt on this issue. The point of the article is, it's great, but do not call it open source. Because there is a stringent mathematical definition of open source, and even though there's a wider world of projects that might not fully identify with that but want to participate in the colloquial spirit of being "open," we want to be very clear that they are not a part of this and need to sit at their own "not-open" table.