Comment by simonw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by simonw | Hacker News Reader

I don't think this license https://github.com/openchatai/OpenCopilot/blob/main/LICENSE is compatible with the tagline "Open source AI sidekick for everyone".

"The Licensee may not distribute, sublicense, sell, or resell the Software, in whole or in part, without explicit written permission from the Licensor"

I have no problem at all with non-open-source licenses, provided they make it clear that they're not open source licenses.

[ UPDATE: I noticed that the README doesn't claim to be open source - but the https://opencopilot.so/ website and the description field at the top right of the GitHub repository does. ]

Is that a known license? I couldn't tell where it came from - it ends with "please contact [Your Contact Information]" which suggests that it's a template from somewhere. But which template?

I tried using GitHub Code Search on strings from it but couldn't find any obvious duplicates.

This team's other project uses an open source MIT license: https://github.com/openchatai/OpenChat

I think that is fair.

I deleted the old custom license and replaced it with MIT license.

https://github.com/openchatai/OpenCopilot/blob/main/LICENSE

We will also make sure that MIT is our to-go license in the coming projects.

Thanks very much for accepting this feedback so quickly!

Thank you for making this change. It distinguishes OpenCopilot from many of the other projects in this space, and gives users and developers a much greater incentive to contribute back.

The OpenCopilot License looks like a modified version of the MIT License, since the all-caps portion is taken verbatim from the original license:

> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED “AS IS”, WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.

https://opensource.org/license/mit/

OpenCopilot is a source-available project but it is not open source. The OpenCopilot License (specifically, the line "The Licensee may not distribute, sublicense, sell, or resell the Software, in whole or in part, without explicit written permission from the Licensor") fails to meet criterion 1 of the Open Source Definition:

> 1. Free Redistribution

> The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

https://opensource.org/osd/

This recent trend of openwashing is unwelcome because it misleads FOSS developers and users who are looking for software that can be used, examined, modified, and redistributed without limitation.

Is there a term for projects that have their sources available to the public, but without a license to resell?

Source available? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

>This recent trend of openwashing is unwelcome because it misleads FOSS developers and users who are looking for software that can be used, examined, modified, and redistributed without limitation.

Please do not use the Free Software Foundation's acronym, FOSS, to describe the OSI's definition of open source. Both of the links you provide from the Open Source Initiative don't mention FOSS at all.

FOSS was initially defined by RMS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

FOSS leans Copyleft, which goes against the "without limitation" criteria you've used to characterize it.

This nuance is explained here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html

The point of my comment is to highlight how the OpenCopilot License is neither free nor open source. The MIT License (Expat License) is also a free software license, and you can use the FSF's link if you prefer: https://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:Expat

> Please do not use the Free Software Foundation's acronym, FOSS

> FOSS was initially defined by RMS: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition

> This nuance is explained here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/floss-and-foss.en.html

Your two links contradict what you are saying. Through the Free Software Foundation, Richard Stallman defined the term free software, not the term FOSS (free and open source software). In fact, your second gnu.org link is an article in which Stallman criticizes the term FOSS and encourages people to switch to the term FLOSS (free/libre and open source software) instead. I am not as picky as Stallman about free/libre software getting 2 letters in the acronym instead of 1, so I tend to use the shorter and more common term FOSS. The acronym FOSS was intended to unify the free software community and the open source software community, and does not belong to the Free Software Foundation.

> FOSS leans Copyleft, which goes against the "without limitation" criteria you've used to characterize it.

Copyleft is a limitation on the license under which a piece of software can be redistributed, and not a limitation on whether the software can be redistributed.

If you want to nitpick, go ahead and substitute what I said with the text of the Free Software Definition: "Freedom to distribute (freedoms 2 and 3) means you are free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission to do so."

The OpenCopilot License does not meet that requirement, either.

FOSS can also simply mean Free Open Source Software, not related to any specific org or license.

The READMD claims it is open source, if you at the banner. It also claims it is MIT licensed, but as you pointed out, it is a modified source-available license not MIT.

This is a grift.

Or an honest mistake?

I see that it was changed to MIT, but I wanted to share that I built a tool for guessing licenses.

https://alexsci.com/which-license/

The tool fails for the old license, unfortunately.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com