Hacker News Reader

Comment by maldonad0 | Hacker News Reader

It's open source, not free software.

‘Free software’ and ‘open source software’ (as respectively defined by the FSF [1] and the OSI [2], which is how they’re usually used in practice) have overlapping definitions. The project in question is released into the public domain via the Unlicense, which qualifies as a free software ‘licence’. Many of the other projects use the MIT/Expat licence, which also qualifies as a free software licence.

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html [2] https://opensource.org/osd

I also use Unlicense. It's literally the most permissive license you can have lol

The caveat with the Unlicense is that it doesn't work in some jurisdictions, and the work may be considered literally unlicensed, as in nobody except the copyright owner can use it. In practical terms, of course, I doubt anyone using the Unlicense plans to come after you for copyright infringement, but it's something to keep in mind. This is why many organizations recommend instead using something like CC0, MIT etc.

And how exactly does it not qualify as an open source license? Seems to meet the definition as far as I can see.

No claim was made that it is not open source. The contention was over if it was a free license or not:

> not free software

which it is. As F3nd0 said, it's both.

If anyone is curious on FSF's comments about various licenses: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.en.html

The license says otherwise; hard to get freer than public domain.

Open source is a more informative term for this than free software. Not all free software is open source, but all open source software is free.

Edit: I was not aware of the FSF's definition. I was using a definition of free software being software that you can use without having to pay for it.

> Not all free software is open sourc

Depends on which "free software" definition you're referring to.

The FSF definition of "free software" requires it to be open source.

I have clarified which definition I used.

I think you are mistaken; neither is a subset of the other. At the very least, there are licences which are recognised as open source by the OSI, but not as free by the FSF, and vice versa [1]. I think it’s more appropriate to say they are two fundamentally separate definitions with a massive overlap.

[1] https://spdx.org/licenses/

Thank you for the information! I was not aware of the FSF's definition.

> Edit: I was not aware of the FSF's definition. I was using a definition of free software being software that you can use without having to pay for it.

That’s called freeware. Also, open-source software can be paid (with the caveat that if someone buys it, you must allow them to redistribute it for free).

You have recited a successful incantation to summon the Stallman acolytes.

To add an additional suggestion, gratis can also be used to refer to free as in free beer. Comes from a latin root and is common in spanish speaking countries to refer only to free of charge, and not as in freedom.

What is the stance of Your Average Corp’s security department on public domain software? Do they accept software under such licensing (or lack thereof)?

Who cares? Seriously. Whether a commercial entity who wants to be able to benefit from your work accepts the license you choose for work you do is as much a concern as whether or not the prime minister of Liechtenstein accepts the color you paint the outside of your house in the USA. That is: none.

Bad analogy.. if they truly care what colour your house is then there's plenty of strings they could pull. I mean, a good number of large U.S. company's tax and corporate structures depend heavily on Liechtenstein's government’s rules..

Some people have standing for better or mostly worse - HOAs and local councils. The government of Liechtenstein does not.

Kinda depends on whether you're publishing open source software so that people can use it. And if you're not publishing open source software so that people can use it, why exactly are you doing it? If you don't want people to use it, GPL is the way to go. If you do want people to use it, MIT or BSD is a much better way to go.

Linux, Git and the entire GNU system are counterexamples. Meanwhile FreeBSD dies by the day.

People != the legal departments of corporations.

GPL is for when you want people to use it. MIT is for when you want megacorporations to turn it into enshittified proprietary software and profit off of it without giving back to you.

Sure. Why not?

>"If you don't want people to use it, GPL is the way to go"

lol

As a counterexample: I would rather use GPL or AGPL licensed code on my machine, than merely MIT licensed code, because I see the philosophical difference behind it, due to copyleft. Someone who makes some code available under (A)GPL wants it to stay available under a free software license. Someone who releases under MIT is either uninformed, or has different motivation , that does not fully align with keeping things libre for people. It is less safe against being made proprietary in the future. Anyone can come and make a new version that is proprietary and has that one more feature, luring people into using the proprietary version instead of the open source one.

So I have much more trust in (A)GPL licensed projects, and I see them as more for the people than MIT licensed projects.

From an American perspective, there’s no mechanical difference between that and the MIT license when it comes to security.

They care more about the package being maintained, bug-free, and their preferred vulnerability database showing no active exploits.

At least in my experience, anyway. Other companies may have stricter requirements.

I recall hearing that SQLite actually had some significant issues with choosing public domain as their license and somewhat regret the decision. Apparently it’s not a concept which has broad understating internationally, and there’s less legal precedent in a software context which has made it harder for some teams to adopt due to concerns from legal departments.

The Unlicense isn't "just" public domain though, it also has a fallback clause that explicitly lists things you are allowed to do ("copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or distribute"). So I think the intent is, even if PD isn't recognized and line 1 is invalid, you're still granting a license to the same effect.

SQLite on the other hand just says

    The author disclaims copyright to this source code.  In place of a legal
    notice, here is a blessing:

      May you do good and not evil.
      May you find forgiveness for yourself and forgive others.
      May you share freely, never taking more than you give.

which seems less useful once you strike sentence 1.

Aside from the posted library sj.h which is in public domain (compatible with the definition of "free software"), the author's other projects mostly use the MIT license.

The MIT license upholds the four essential freedoms of free software: the right to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software.

It is listed under "Expat License" in the list of GPL-compatible Free Software licenses.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

"Source Available" and "Open Source" (with an OSI-approved license) are the terms you're looking for. "Free as in speech, or free as in beer?" is your rallying cry.

Or Free as in Ebola, in the case of GPL-licensed software. Whatever happened to Free as in Air and Sunshine?

It was enshittified because there was nothing defending it.

From what? It's pretty difficult to enshittify something that has an MIT license; whereas there seem to be practically infinite ways to enshittify GPL software.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com