You seem to be confused about the common meaning of open source. Open Source only means the source code is available. It doesn't mean it's license or TOS is also open. That's why the acronyms FOSS and FLOSS exist as well.
It practically is, and they've done a good job of gathering the relevant citations to make that point.
https://opensource.org/authority/
If you're passionately against this, feel free to make the relevant edit here as well: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-source_software#Definitio... (but you may have to have a litany of citations to justify why the OSI definition is not a de facto standard if you want it to stick).
It seems to me that it’s OSI (around for years, reputable, etc) vs some for profit companies misusing common terminology in the, I think false, sense that people think non-open things they call open are good. Not sure if they are deluded or just wrong.
Happy to talk about some new authority for open source licenses, but it seems like the “OSI isn’t an authority, nobody is” is an argument by 8th graders who just read the Wikipedia article on communism.
OSI formed to help open source developers and users to better understand “proper” licenses from bullshit.
The OSI has done a great job at introducing a legally ratified and globally recognized license format to help reduce uncertainty, but it is not, and has on several occasions been denied[0], the global authority on the definition of Open Source. They have a trademark and are the authority for "Open Source Initiative Approved License" (ie: "OSI License") specifically.
[0]: https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
It’s not like there’s some competing definition. OSI has been around for 20+ years and only recently did a few companies decide they want a different definition so they can make more money.
But the issue isn’t that there’s some word police. The issue is that open source has a definition in use and when people try to overload, it gets confusing. I wish people wouldn’t do that, but it’s free country (free as in speech, not free as in beer).
No one cares if source is “open” in that people can view it. In that case windows is “open.” The important part of open is the ability to change, reuse, and participate.
Why would anyone care if source is visible but not usable? I’ve been able to decompile forever. I can see the source if I need to. The community and reuse aspect is important.
Finally, OSI doesn’t define the term. They just certify licenses that adhere to open source principles and ideas. The community defines the term. Everyone is free to make up new licenses. OSI just helps the community filter out noise by reviewing licenses that actually are open source.
This is exactly my point, the community defines the term. The OSI definition does a good job of making the legal aspect of (their vision for) "open source" explicit, but it also adds additional definitions beyond what the average layperson might consider "Open Source".
Take section 5 and 6 of the "Open Source Definition"[0]. It states you can't discriminate against "persons, groups, fields, or endeavors". So if I wrote some software, put a MIT license on it, with a single additional clause that says the CIA can not use this software. Magically, it is no longer "Open Source" according to the OSI, even though 99.9999% of people can freely use it under the MIT.
[0]: https://opensource.org/osd
They have a definition, they even have a pretty good definition, but the OSI shouldn't be the definition. All OSI licenses are open source licenses, but not all open source licenses are OSI licenses. (All thumbs are fingers, not all fingers are thumbs).
Right, because it’s not open source and not MIT. Open source isn’t about 99.999% of people being able to use it, it’s about be free and open.
This is the commonly accepted definition of open source and there’s very few who would consider your custom license open source.
Practically speaking, it means I can’t use it even though I’m not in the CIA because I want my project to be compatible and reusable down the line by anyone. So I use a true OSI license like MIT and want all the software I link to and use compatible so users have a clear expectation.
You can make your new license, but I don’t want to use it as I only want to use open source licenses.
I don’t want to hire an attorney to review your license and see if it works or not. I want to just filter by known licenses and make sure they are compatible with my other licenses.
There are open source licenses that aren’t OSI, but they are pretty few and OSI works diligently to review new licenses and add them.
Your example license isn’t open source though, so it doesn’t fit this small group.
You might think so but I disagree.
1000 people misusing the term means the term changes. 1 person misusing the term is just a jerk.
I’m always suspicious when people overloading a term are all doing it for personal benefit (ie, promoting their product).
I think consensus is around OSI now, but it could change. I might not be right in the future, but I think I’m right now.
Anegdotally I have been a professional dev for 10 years and this is the first time I hear your definition of open source.
If we go back, say, 25 years, when the term Open Source entered common usage, it was a way of describing the things that had thusfar been labeled "free software", but as a way of deemphasizing the notion of the Free Software movement that saw non-free-software as immoral. It was a term to describe things that met the Free Software Definition, but without harping on morality.
It was very much a counter-culture (it was, after all, the Free Software movement and the Open Source movement), and very much not a generic term for having access to the source. That was already super common in enterprise agreements, and nobody considered that to be open source.
Then around the early 2000s, Linux became hot shit, and some large companies wanted to avail themselves to the rising tide and began labeling their watered down versions of "source available" things as open source in an attempt to jump on the bandwagon. But that was an intentional attempt to water down the definition everyone already understood for marketing reasons.
You not knowing this history means that to some extent the marketing worked. But just realize that in arguing here, you're participating in the astroturfing. Also, get off my lawn!
But I’m also in the camp that didn’t know this history and had a softer definition of “open source”. That’s just how language changes, shrug.
But this I think is one of those cases where there is a difference, because it's also descriptive of a community, and it matters how that community sees itself. With whatever definition of open source you have, the most high traction stuff that we all rely on (I originally wrote, "most", but I think e.g. the Linux kernel matters more than a random abandoned repo on Github) is produced by people that use that older definition of open source, and mostly by people who identify with that social movement. (I for a long time was one of those people.) In this case I do believe that in that all of us now rely on open source software, that redefining it in opposition to the group of people who produce that thing is less than respectful.
I'm pretty sure it's not, unless by developer you mean land developers and not software devs
Oh, but you can, just do it in your fork. You can't claim their trademark but that's a completely different thing.
They're not inherently bad licenses but they aren't open source.
No, that's "source available." If there is no open source license, then it is not open source.
(I do understand that Solargraph is now using a proprietary enterprise license, so this comment is directed at the OP mentioning "OSI approved" licenses, not at Solargraph's new license.)
* it ain't trademarked.
The term source-available has been shoehorned to mean everything-not-OSI-approved, instead of what it used to mean: a proprietary license for a project that has its source available (e.g. Sourcegraph's license).
In reality, "open source is a broad software license that makes source code available to the general public with relaxed or non-existent restrictions on the use and modification of the code." Which is the definition the majority of developers would say is open source.
The ELv2 and most uses of BSL fall under the "relaxed restrictions" on use and modification, similar to GPL. I'd argue they are open source.
Not to the general public, only to the users doesn't have to be generally available to the public, see recent RHEL PR debacle. It's not about the restrictions it's about what you are allowed to do with the code.
> ... Which is the definition the majority of developers would say is open source.
Can you prove your claim has anyone done demographics on this?
Also, I'm quoting Perens' definition of open source.
Users of the BSL refer to it as a "source-available" license that, after a period of time, converts into an "open source" license:
https://www.couchbase.com/blog/couchbase-adopts-bsl-license/
https://itsfoss.com/making-the-business-source-license-open-...
Note that I'm not coming from a position of hostility re: the BSL and similar licenses here. I think companies using that approach can be friendly neighbors with the open source community. I just think it's important for those neighbors to share a well-maintained fence to keep malicious actors from exploiting ambiguity.
Now, that is one of the main reasons why non-OSS licenses are being adopted: many companies prepare contingencies in case an OSS project dies, instead of making some arrangements to help a bit to ensure the project doesn't die. However right the vendors are, the resulting license significantly (materially, non-word-playfully) restricts the users, which is exactly why those users are compelled to start paying for the product.
P.S. None of what I wrote means I oppose those licenses, as they may be needed to ensure a healthy ecosystem. But I oppose calling them OSS.