Hacker News Reader

Comment by ctrlmeta | Hacker News Reader

Opensource has a specific definition and the definition includes:

> The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

So if businesses cannot use it for commerical purpose, that's not open source literally by definition. It is not about what your line of thinking is. Words have meaning and "opensource" has a specific meaning.

If you want to talk about software that must not be used for commercial purpose, there is a specific word for it too and the word is "noncommercial" which is not the same thing as "opensource".

View on HN

Sorry I don't respect unsourced quotes.

Basically every OSS license contains something like the following (examples from MIT):

> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software

> to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software

Adding restrictions on who can use the software goes against the idea that the software is for anyone, anywhere.

The quote above comes from OSI (Open Source Initiative):

> 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

> The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

> 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

For-profit business is a "field of endeavor". Restricting usage for for-profit businesses can be a good idea, but it's no longer open source.

> OSI (Open Source Initiative)

Right. OSI is steered by business interests, and has distorted the public view of what open source actually is. So currently anything that is not "business friendly", is not open source. I reject that notion out of hand.

Richard Stallman has long argued for [1] and established [2] the same thing as a requirement for open source, and I don't think anyone would accuse him of being a shill for "business interests".

It's a (these days popular) rewriting of history to suggest that "big business interests" are the only reason open source definitions do not allow authors to restrict what a user can do with the software. Rather, from the start, this was seen as a fundamental freedom, the freedom to run the software as you wish rather than have to get permission from the copyright holder as to how you are to use it, where you are to run it, for what purposes.

It's, for instance, been part of the GNU license since before OSI even existed, and in those days I don't think anyone would argue GNU was a tool controlled by "business interests". In fact, the reason people now don't seem to like this requirement for "freedom to run" is precisely because it interferes with their "business interests", their desire to make money from open source. That may be a respectable desire -- but open source does not conflict with it becuase of "business interests", but the opposite, because it's ethos was from the start about the rights of users to have freedom to use software, not about "business interests" in profiting from it.

[1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed...

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

You're avoiding the fly in the ointment, which is that the definition of "open source" that is advocated by the OSI is not without controversy and does not necessarily comport with how the term "open source" is used in everyday language. (I don't really care what Richard Stallman thinks here, FWIW.) Thus it's not immediately clear to me that you can say without reservation that software with available, noncommercially-licensed source code fails to be "open source" -- as when I use "open source" I and many others mean something different from what the OSI means.

You are avoiding the "fly in the ointment" that open source has always meant freedom to run it how, where, and for the purposes the user wants, from before the OSI even existed, and your and many other people's use is in fact not only an attempt to change the historical meaning, but a change that is motivated by the business interests of those who would like to profit off of selling software licenses while still calling that software "open source".

But sure, you are part of a movement to change the definition of open source to suit certain business interests in opposition to the original principles of freedom that motivated the concept of open source. I acknowledge that movement exists, and that you all are attempting to change the meaning of open source. People have tried to change the meaning of open source to suit their business interests since it began, but there is a new wave of invigorated effort to put holes in the meaning of open source to serve certain business interests. I don't think you have succeeded yet, and I hope you do not, and I'll keep pointing it out. If anyone can call anything they want open source, of course various business interests will, since it is viewed as an attractive label.

> But sure, you are part of a movement to change the definition of open source to suit certain business interests in opposition to the original principles of freedom that motivated the concept of open source.

I am not a part of anything here, unless I suppose you want to place me in a very loose group of linguistic descriptivists. I am concerned here with how the phrase "open source" is actually used across the breadth of English speakers, not with how it is defined solely by groups and persons with specific political goals.

Sure, ignoring OSI, the licenses themselves, the ones we use to ship OSS, have the very same sentiment in them: You can use this software for whatever you want, without restrictions.

For me personally, the "without restrictions" part is a huge part of why I use OSS. I want to use it for whatever I want, and is the same reason I publish OSS for others, I want them to be able to use it for whatever they want, even if I personally disagree with whatever that is.

open source, means the source code is available, in my opinion. I don't agree with your opinion, or the OSI, or any of the licenses you named. That might be why the license I choose doesn't include that language:

https://polyformproject.org/licenses/noncommercial/1.0.0

Someone could put time and effort into some software, and put it out to the world to be used for decades. Some company could then use that software to make a profit, and the original author would get nothing. I don't think thats right, and I will keep raising awareness against those who have been brainwashed into thinking only business friendly licenses are open source.

I don't generally agree with you, and I have zero "big business" interest behind me, I don't work for anyone for quite some time.

But this:

> I will keep raising awareness against those who have been brainwashed into thinking only business friendly licenses are open source.

is not generally a helpful perspective to have. I understand you don't agree, and you want people to understand your point of view. But if your goal is really to "raise awareness", it generally doesn't help to call other people "brainwashed". I won't call you brainwashed because you don't agree with me, not everyone needs to have the same opinion.

It's possible to have a different perspective than others without being manipulated by something else.

> open source, means the source code is available, in my opinion.

Hard disagree because I have been in the open source arena for two decades and I have never seen any notable project using "open source" to mean "source code is available". A software whose source code is available is just "source available" but "open", "free", "libre" mean much more than just source code available. I am not making this up! Just look at the license terms of any open source project of repute.

"Source available" is not enough for me to use a software. If a software license forbids any field of endeavour (including but not limited to commercial activity), it is no longer "open" to me anymore. Sure the source is available but it is not open, it is not free, it is not libre because it discriminates against a field of endeavour.

When I make something open source I really mean "open" and any individual or organization should be able to use my software without any discrimination while agreeing to the terms and conditions set out in the license.

If I really want to forbid commercial activity, then I will choose a "noncommercial" (and thus non-open, non-free, non-libre) license.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com