Open Source is a functional definition that served us for 25 years. E.g. if software is Open Source, it can be included in a Linux distribution. Most distributions do not accept software that is incompatible with the Open Source definition. Diluting the term open source makes it more difficult to talk about a certain class of software licenses.
And why dilute the term if we have the perfect alternative term source available?
"Do whatever you want as long as you keep it Free Software" vs "do whatever you want as long as we believe you are not taking customers for us"
As usual, RMS was right, and I recommend reading the Free Software vs Open Source essay, unfortunately both names make it easy to misinterpret their respective fundamental idea (Free can and is usually interpreted as "gratis", and open as available/published/shared)
> It's a different restriction.
AGPL doesn't impose restrictions. It provides guarantees (that modified versions will remain AGPL and therefore open source for everybody).
> AGPL lets you do anything as long as it is just as Free (as in freedom)
By the very definition of open source software, you can do pretty much what you want, for your own usage. If you want to distribute (e.g. provide a service) with a modified version, then you need to guarantee that modified version retains the right that the original version granted.
Let me do the same for the quasi "open source" licenses:
Elastic license doesn't impose restrictions. It provides guarantees (that modified versions will not take business from you).
The only way you guarantee something, is by restricting something else. AGPL restricts distribution.
It does. It explicitly forbids usage. FOSS doesn't impose any restrictions on usage.
Fundamentally different things. I encourage you to review the four freedoms of Free Software [1] and see how AGPLv3 provide them all while Elastic License does not.
It does impose restrictions on distribution (which is one kind of usage) which was my point.
I'm fully aware of the four freedoms, I'm fully aware that elastic is not compliant. I'm fully aware that elastic is not open source by OSD, nor Free as per FSF. I was just stating that both impose restrictions, they are just of a different kind. I'm not advocating for elastic (i do not like non-free licenses), please do not misunderstand.
>> Elastic license doesn't impose restrictions. > It does. It explicitly forbids usage.
Please read that statement in its context. I was just doing the same thing you did. Swapping restrictions for guarantees. There is no such thing as a guarantee without restring something.
It does not restrict distribution, instead of restricts the ability to limit/restrict distribution. Quite a significant difference.
Also, fundamentally, one (AGPL) is putting the freedoms of the code and its users over those of the authors whereas the other (ELv2) puts the freedoms and interests of its authoring business over the freedom of the code and it's users.
semantics. Saying i cannot distribute something without providing the same freedoms given to me is still restricting what/how I distribute.
> Also, fundamentally, one (AGPL) is putting the freedoms of the code and its users over those of the authors whereas the other (ELv2) puts the freedoms and interests of its authoring business over the freedom of the code and it's users.
Yes. I fully agree. It's not like I haven't said something similar right but it's just discussing semantics at this point. So I'll stop.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34530039
I despise licenses like Elastic's and wished SaaS would just use AGPL.
I don't think most major Open Source projects in the last 10 years have even once considered,
'E.g. if software is Open Source, it can be included in a Linux distribution.'
That is exactly what I mean by "out of touch".
If I had to guess the primary motivator for being Open Source, are the communal and moral aspects of it.
Edit: I see you edited that part out.
("Open Source" itself isn't a trademark, but the OSI bits are, so I removed it to avoid confusion.)
(There's no indication that the legal construction of a trademark is "going the way of the bandaid", or that bandaids are "going the way of the bandaid" for that matter.)