>> The SQLite3 business model is that SQLite3 is open source
This is going to sound pedantic, but SQLite is not Open Source. It's Public Domain. The distinction is subtle, but it is important.
This is going to sound pedantic, but SQLite is not Open Source. It's Public Domain. The distinction is subtle, but it is important.
Well, there are 2 different modes of communication:
(1) official language-lawyer pedantic communication: "open source" != "public domain"
(2) conversational casual chitchat : "open source" includes "public domain"
Yes, the SQLite home page does say "public domain". However, when people interview SQLite create, Richard Hipp, he himself calls it "open source". He also doesn't correct others when they also call it "open source". Excerpt of R Hipp:
So, I thought, well, why can't I have a database that just
reads directly off the disc? And I looked around and
there were none available. I thought, “oh, I'll just write
my own, how hard can that be?” Well, it turns out to be
harder than you might think at first, but I didn't know
that at the time. But we got it out there and I just put it
out as open source. And before long, I started getting
these phone calls from the big tech companies of the
day, like Motorola and AOL, and, “Hey, can you
support this?”, and “Sure!” And it's like, wow, you can
make money by supporting open source software?
it's wrong though. like, can't be more wrong than that. you can't do whatever you want with open source software, the license tells what you can and cannot do.
with public domain software you can do most things.
Edit: FSF should have been OSI, I think. Fixed.
(To be fair to OSI, I've never seen any of their representatives do this. But the internet vigilante squad they've spawned feels quite empowered to let us know we've broken the rules.)
I don't know where you got this idea but it's not true. The OSI is simply defending the definition as it has been generally understood since the start of its usage in the 1980s by Stallman and others.
The only group of people "re-defining" -- quite successfully I suppose, which you are an example of -- what open source software means are those that have a profit motive to use the term to gain traction during the initial phase where a proprietary model would not have benefited them.
I don't think I need to provide concrete examples of companies that begin with an open source licensing model, only to rug-pull their users as soon as they feel it might benefit them financially, these re-licensing discussions show up on HN quite often.
Most of us on 8 and 16 bit home computers didn't even knew "Stallman and others" were.
Additionally, GCC only took off after Sun became the first UNIX vendor to split UNIX into two SKUs, making the whole development tools its own product. Others quickly followed suit.
Also, in regards to Ada adoption hurdles, when they made an Ada compiler, it was its own SKU, not included on the UNIX SDK base package.
Nobody's arguing that public domain code, or the MIT, or whatever is not open source; it's obviously open source because it's _more_ free than the GPL.
Sure, devs can call any "source available" project "open source" because it gets people interested even though you have zero interest in using an open source development model or allowing others to make changes to the code. Devs can also expect well deserved flak from people who understand that "open source" is not marketing speak.
No. What are you talking about? They are not related... other than for people virtually completely new to, well, open source.
You are also completely confused, here, too:
> Yes, the SQLite home page does say "public domain". However, when people interview SQLite create, Richard Hipp, he himself calls it "open source". He also doesn't correct others when they also call it "open source".
They are different things. A project can be both; a person can talk about these two aspects of one project.
> They are different things. A project can be both; a person can talk about these two aspects of one project.
BTW, your pouring on of qualifiers (elsewhere "weasel words") shows your (correct) lack of conviction:
> the details of definitions, but I think by most people's definitions of 'open source', something that is 'public domain' qualifies as such
I'm a bit puzzled why SQLite doesn't solve this trivial issue by claiming the code is CC0-licensed. CC0 is made just for that: a very wordy way to make it as close to public domain as possible in each jurisdiction.
On the other hand, hobbyists won't care. As long as you trust them in their intention to have it open source they won't sue you for infringement either. And if as a company you need more assurance than "it's public domain" they are so nice to sell you a fancy legally-satisfying piece of paper for an undisclosed price. It's a subtle but clever way to get income from users with too much money
They explicitly state, "Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute the original SQLite code, either in source code form or as a compiled binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means."
One can buy a "license" if one's company is run by idle lawyers: https://www.sqlite.org/purchase/license
It's not clear this is a license grant rather than legal advice (which would be correct legal advice if the code were public domain, but it is not).
It's $6,000 https://sqlite.org/prosupport.html
Is it though? The website does say "All of the code and documentation in SQLite has been dedicated to the public domain by the authors" but copyright law has no exception for "dedications" to the public domain. At best the authors are estopped from bringing suit but even that is unclear.
[quote]
Licenses are available to satisfy the following needs:
* You want indemnity against claims of copyright infringement.
* You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the public domain.
* You are using SQLite in a jurisdiction that does not recognize the right of authors to dedicate their work to the public domain.
* You want to hold a tangible legal document as evidence that you have the legal right to use and distribute SQLite.
* Your legal department tells you that you have to purchase a license.
How's that for being pedantic?
capitalization is not bearing meaning in these contexts.
open source means OSI compliant, broadly speaking, and licensed as such.
in contrast, public domain doesn't exist in some jurisdictions, which is why sqlite as a company had to create an option to provide an official license. which they found so annoying that they charged a sweet fee to send a signed printed letter...
> “Open Source” describes a subset of free software that is made available under a copyright license approved by the Open Source Initiative as conforming with the Open Source Definition.
No it doesn't. It describes software whose source is "open" which is generally understood to mean that you can read, modify and reuse the code for free.
Public domain definitely fits that. The "public domain doesn't exist in some countries" arguments are spurious as far as I can tell.
In other words you don't use PD software "like Free Software". You can use it in many places where Free Software would not be permissible.
In terms of -developer- freedom, public domain is top of the pile, the Open Source, then Free Software.
In terms of -user- freedoms Free Software is top of the pile, OSS in the middle, public domain is similar to commercial software.
GPL is copyleft. MIT, BSD etc. are permissive. But all of those are both free software and open source, which are essentially synonyms.
The reason so many people get confused by this is that some of the people who prefer copyleft licenses (notably the FSF) also tend to prefer the term “free software”, for philosophical reasons.
In your analogy we're not the ones calling elephants bananas, you are. We want to keep calling one bananas and the other elephants. You are suggesting that since elephants are similar to bananas you can simply use either word.
Legally, Open Source and Public Domain are -very- different animals. Open Source comes eith a copyright, and a license (which has requirements), public domain does not.
Of course public domain and open source are both "shipped as source code". Then again so is a fair bit of proprietary software. That doesn't make it open source either.
Similarly the common use of "open source" is different to the OSI's preferred definition. Note that the OSI's preferred definition is not a legal definition. It's just what they prefer.
Please note that public domain laws vary depending on the country. What you call a banana might mean something different elsewhere.
Conversely, open source doesn't necessarily mean "free to use without encumbrance." There are many open-source licenses that forbid certain uses (e.g. Business Source License). On the other hand, a work in the public domain is free to be used by all without restriction.
A better analysis of open source vs. public domain would be in the form of a square, where one dimension would be the right to use the work, and the other dimension would be the ability to obtain and contribute source code.
Also, many licenses, such as the GPL (one of the very first "open source" licenses), have certain encumbrances; you cannot redistribute GPL-licensed software without either including its source code or making it readily available.
Open Source relies on copyright and contract law (which are somewhat standardized or at least understood due to their importance in commerce). Public domain relies on other laws that can vary significantly.
https://opensource.org/blog/public-domain-is-not-open-source