I'd rather have proprietary than "almost open source". Both aren't useful, but only one attempts to damage the common understanding of what "Open Source" means.
The actual text of the BSL mandates - under threat of infringing on BSL's trademark - that in at most four years the code will be available under a GPL 2.0 compatible license. In practice, the BSL license is usually a traditional open source one with caveats. The BSL FAQ also states and restates many, MANY times that it is not an open source license according to the OSI's definition.
I can't help but feel like the outcry over this is just a tempest in a teapot. I have a hunch that "Open Source" will do just fine without us having to carry water for it. After all, the list of OSI's corporate sponsors is quite illustrious: https://opensource.org/sponsors/
If we don't have a common definition, everyone has their own, and there's no common understanding of what rights you have for a piece of Open Source software. That commons has far far more value than any one or ten pieces of software.
I don't think so.
I suppose I can understand why people who feel strongly that the OSI definition is perfect (or at least extremely good) are very intent on protecting it, whereas I see it as flawed and am thus less concerned about this fracturing. So I understand your perspective upon reflection, though I honestly have a lot of trouble imagining holding it myself.
A lot of people in this thread have been saying stuff like "just go full proprietary, that's better", and it sounds ridiculous to me every time I read a variant of it
As for the commons, you are aware that the OSD comes from the Debian Free Software Guidelines (it's the same thing but for some minor working changes)? That is the commons that's been talked about, and it's deployed on far more systems than any BSL code is. So moving to completely propriety (note that this doesn't mean it's not Source Available) means that everyone is upfront about what the state is, whereas something like the BSL is leaning into the halo effect under the justification that the code will be open source at some future point.
But this second part of the argument I just don't grok at all. These licenses like BSL provide significantly more of what I want in software I use than proprietary software does. (Namely, the ability to read, modify, and self-host the software of I choose to.)
I think what must be going on is that when you see a license like this you think "there is no point to something like that besides a PR stunt trying to imply proprietary software is open source", and I think "oh this seems like a really useful compromise that allows commercial enterprises to create software with code that I can read, modify, run myself, and contribute to if I want to, without a different company that did none of the work on the software making all the money from it". Just totally different perspectives.
The reason I'm personally annoyed at the attempt to drop the requirement for no restrictions on use is because it is something some academic software does (things like "if you use this code, any results must be shown to me before publishing and require my approval", which as you can imagine isn't great), or with rules around benchmarking (which some DB companies have been known to do), and it's significantly harder to draw the line between something that would allow the BSL, or the above two cases, than it is to require no restrictions on use.
But this part:
> had they been more careful in their language (or even in their CLA), then people would be less annoyed.
I just don't agree. I think they were very careful in their language, and I keep wondering whether everyone here who is pissed at them even actually read it, because I feel like a lot of people keep saying they said things that they clearly worked hard to not say.
I think it's a common shared understanding and a focal point, and there's huge value in preserving that. Having a different common understanding might be acceptable, and might even be an improvement, but only if people agree on it. Having no common understanding would mean something of great value was lost.
Right now, many different groups who may not all agree on all goals nonetheless gain value by sticking to Open Source, and not a dozen slight variations on additional restrictions. In the absence of that, we'd have the "non-commercial" group, the "educational use" group, the "don't compete with us" group, the "don't use for military applications" group, the "don't use for nuclear reactors" group, the "don't use to develop proprietary software" group, the "don't redistribute unmodified versions" group, the "don't distribute outdated versions" group, a dozen variations on "don't distribute if you disagree with our values" groups, the "don't distribute if you're a large company" group, the "don't distribute if you're a specific company" groups...
Every one of those is a license term I've seen advocated. Every one of those violates the OSD, so it thankfully stays obscure and unpopular, because enough people prefer using and contributing to software with less unusual licensing.
Yeah I guess this just seems like hyperbole to me. It seems good to me that there's a pretty widely agreed upon definition, sure, but I just don't think it matters all that much, in the scheme of things.
Agree to disagree I suppose!
We have a messaging flow building platform which is BSL. Anyone who wants to run their own instance is welcome to and people do and thus find it useful. The idea that the world would be better off if we made it closed source and prevented that... is just nonsense.
How does making something closed source automatically mean someone can't run their own instance of it, even for free? Closed source does not mean 'You can only download this if you pay us', just as open source does not mean 'You can download this for free'
The broad distinction we care about within free software is copyleft vs. permissive, and one important one in proprietary software is source-available vs. closed-source.
Then besides all of that there are the non-licensing realities of how development is actually carried out, whether it is collaborative with outsiders, and with which outsiders...
The terms get harder because open/closed suggests straightforward opposites that partition all the options. But I'd characterize licenses like BSL and the Fair Source License as 'generous proprietary licenses with public source availability', but not open-source.
I have a feeling that the term 'open-source' is more likely to erode than 'free software', in the coming decades. We'll see, I guess.
You are exactly correct about this.
1. Open-Source is a "Marketing Program for Free-Software". You describe yourself as having the "free-software" world view (which I describe as an anti-developer property worldview).
See: You can find OSI describe itself as a "Marketing Program for Free-Software" in their original FAQ: https://web.archive.org/web/20010406183942/http://opensource...
> The terms get harder because open/closed suggests straightforward opposites that partition all the options.
2. Again, you are exactly correct. By erroneously choosing term that is generic, that was already in use, and that can't be trademarked, the OSI set itself up for a loosing battle as "the universal standard" for what is not "closed-source".
GENERIC/DESCRIPTIVE: "We have discovered that there is virtually no chance that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office would register the mark “open source”; the mark is too descriptive. Ironically, we were partly a victim of our own success in bringing the “open source” concept into the mainstream. So “Open Source” is not and cannot become a trademark.
https://opensource.org/pressreleases/certified-open-source.p...
ALREADY IN USE: There are many documented uses of "open source" in relation to software that is not closed-source, going all the way back to 1985. https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html#pre-1998-usage
> But I'd characterize licenses like BSL and the Fair Source License as 'generous proprietary licenses with public source availability', but not open-source.
As a person with a self-defined affiliation with free-software, it makes complete sense that you would see it this way, but how many people outside of the free-software group see that? The further someone is from self-affiliation with "free-software" surely the less likely they are to agree with this terminology.
> I have a feeling that the term 'open-source' is more likely to erode than 'free software', in the coming decades. We'll see, I guess.
I 100% agree with you. The OSI postulates a union between the interests of people who release software into the public domain, and the interests of people like yourself who believe in Free-Software.
In my view, there is nothing uniting these two groups and the fracture is 100% inevitable. Even if your preferred term `source-available` were to gain widespread acceptance/use, there is no reason for independent developers to subsidize big business by making their source free to use for those big businesses, unless the developers ideologically agree with the tenants of the free-software movement. However, if the developers agreed with the free-software movement, they would choose a GPL style license, not a MIT/BSD/Apache style public domain license.