Hacker News Reader

Could we change the title to more clearly reflect that this is a license change from a permissive to a restrictive licence? Maybe "Mapbox GL JS v2 no longer uses a permissive license"? I initially thought by the title that Mapbox had removed the library from GitHub completely.

View on HN

What is this talk about "permissive" licenses? It was open source, it's not open source any more. The Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd

EDIT: The title has now changed but it was "Mapbox GL JS is no longer open source", which is the point: they didn't change from an open source license to another.

To be honest I just wanted to see a more descriptive title specifically to avoid the tired, unproductive discussion of "what is open source".

No need to discuss what is open source as there are agreeing definitions by multiple parties (OSI, FSF, Debian etc.). How is it more productive to use terms like a "permissive" and a "restrictive" license for which there is no generally agreed meaning?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com