What's the deal with the name? Openrsync implies to me that it's an open source alternative to a closed source program. But the original Rsync is GPL? Is this just the pushover license making it "more open"?
Two different ways of thinking about it I guess... it's nice to have choices and I don't think one is more or less "correct", more a matter of opinion/taste I guess.
A true morality must be based on consent, not coercion. Humanity may not be there yet, and therein lies the argument for force (and thus copyleft); but the ultimate goal should always be to reduce its necessity.
BSD license is unrestricted, it tolerates taking open source and closing it, thus always being at risk of things closing down.
GPL license doesn’t tolerate taking from open source and closing it, thus ensuring things stay open.
equal footing on the license is what allowed AWS to crush the original creators of the products they host.
it's a trade off.
the AGPL does not prevent a hosting service. it only prevents creating non-free addons. i see no problem with that. see also my other comment
CLAs are not an attribute of the GPL. They're an agreement that can be applied to contributions to any codebase with any license.
Afaik BSD licensed stuff can be re-licensed under any more closed licenses at any time, where as to re-license GPL, you need consent from every single contributor.
But i’m not familiar with the redis-valkey story so, maybe there is some nuance i am missing?
There is no such risk. If someone wishes to make a closed source derivative of the BSD-licensed original, it does not deprive anyone of the original. That remains there, just as open as before.
With the GPL, if you want to modify, and built on others work, you have to share.
Share and share alike, vs take if you like share if you like.
GNU folks would say that the GPL does more to protect the freedom of end users by guaranteeing their right to access the source code, whereas permissive licenses allow users to receive binaries, the source code corresponding to which is unavailable to them.
I'm not trying to be idly pedantic here, but to emphasize one of things I genuinely admire about the FSF, SFC, etc.: while they do have words, concepts, and terms of art they're attached to, they're actually pretty good at always explicitly tying their positions back to a specific and well-articulated vision of software freedom. They don't usually get caught up in pure terminology ("what is maximally open?", "what is really free?"). They tend to be clear about whose rights they aim to promote and protect and why, and the bigger picture that fits into.
Whether you agree with them or not, I think it's a more defensible position than a shallow terminological squabble.
As someone that is somewhat aligned with those groups, I also want to say this: licenses are just tools for promoting freedom. It's a question of strategy and tactics. All permissively licensed free software is still free software, and the vast majority of it undeniably contributes positively to software freedom on the whole. (The only concrete exceptions I can think of are uses of permissively licensed free software code to implement things like Intel's Management Engine, DRM, maybe some Trusted Computing stuff.) OpenBSD is free software and it's good shit. We should think of licensing questions like this as a friendly dispute among people who have all given generously to support software freedom.
I don't think so; it's two different goals, not two different ways of thinking about it.
The goal of GPL is the interests of users (they can never be locked out of improvements no matter who makes changes).
The goal of BSD is the interests of the developers (A developer can take it, add mods and close of the entire result).
In practice, GPL is pro-user, BSD/MIT is pro-business.
Yet every time a GPL licensed product competes against a BSD licensed product in an open market, even when inferior the GPL product wins in the long run.
That's because the GPL ecosystem leapfrogs the BSD one every time one of those pro-business businesses sells proprietary add-ons while the former stands on one another's shoulders.
It's almost like free markets composed of multi vendor ecosystems are business friendly?
(Sarcasm aside, the weasel word here is "business". Customers and vendors are both businesses. Monopolies are very business-friendly for the vendor, just not for anyone else.)
It's a rule that's mostly only true for self-contained products though, it hasn't been true for things like codecs and SSL stacks, and components used by proprietary and free products alike.
> OpenSSH originated in 1999 as a fork of Björn Grönvall's OSSH, which derived from Tatu Ylönen's original SSH 1.2.12 release, the last version distributed under a license permitting open-source redistribution before Ylönen's subsequent software became proprietary under SSH Communications Security.[4]
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenSSH
It was probably the second thing with the Open— prefix by this group of developers, OpenBSD itself being the first. They simply ran with the naming convention. OpenBGP/OSPF were developed as alternatives to Quagga (GPL).
It is not reasonable to claim this prefix unambiguously refers to the OpenBSD team. I do not understand why so many in this thread are pretending this isn't a confusing choice.
In fact, your insistence that “Open” can only be used by projects that are replacing proprietary software is itself very odd.
OpenBSD itself has had its name for thirty years, and is not named for being an “open source” implementation of a proprietary OS.
Do not invent arguments that I did not make. I have only said that naming it openrsync when rsync already exists and is "open" in the general sense is confusing.
I find the negative reactions to this observation very confusing, especially yours, but I see that you're an OpenBSD developer so that explains your bias.
Edit: and now these same people are backtracking to agree with me that "open" is ambiguous, this place never ceases to amaze
What was said is that the OpenBSD operating system folks chose to use the Open— prefix for all their other projects ("They simply ran with the naming convention."). What was not said was that all Open— prefixed projects were from them.
Not closed source, but with rsync 3.0 it changed its license to GPL3, which a lot of folks don't like: BSD/MIT licenses have zero limitations on use and distribution, GPL2 (rsync 1.x, 2.x) forces one to release code, GPL3 (rsync ≥3.x) adds further restrictions.
Some folks want to distribute code with as few restrictions as possible. Other folks have a great good/goal in mind (e.g., 'all software is open source') and so add 'local restrictions' to hopefully achieve greater non-restrictions.
> This system has been merged into OpenBSD base. If you'd like to contribute to openrsync, please mail your patches to tech@openbsd.org. This repository is simply the OpenBSD version plus some glue for portability.
Seems more cathedral than Bazaar to me.