Do you really believe that the only definition of "open source" that any honest person is referring to when they use the term is the exact definition that you subscribe to?
back
1 comments
Yes. The definition is clearly stated. I don't believe that someone can't be mistaken or ignorant, and I don't blame them for this - but once corrected, their tune needs to change. Less than that constitutes an attack on open source, because it's deliberately dilluting the term to broaden it to include software which is clearly not.
Clearly stated by one organization. Everyone is free to agree or disagree with that organization's position, whether fully or partially. There's a reason they have a logo, and I don't see the author of n8n using that logo anywhere on their site.
In my experience, common usage of the term "open source" is far more lax than you're making it out to be. A compelling argument could be made that you're the one gaslighting here.
Clearly stated by one organization whose definition has been universally endorsed. You can't put up a lemonade stand, sell people jars of piss, and then claim that you thought piss was a kind of lemonade. You certainly can't keep doing it after you've been told. You can't choose what language means because it's convenient to you. The definition of open source is universally agreed upon and non-controverial, except for people who want to sow dissent in open source for selfish, profit-driven motivations.
Replying here because I think it got too deeply nested.
I disagree with the definition, or at least the strict application of it. Therefore it is not "universal".
And I question why you disagree with that definition. Can you explain?
Based purely on experience. People use the term to mean different things. That's why the first thing I do when I see a new "open source" project is check the license to clarify "what kind" of open source it is. But I wouldn't assume bad faith unless the license was clearly limited in some way that would affect a high percentage of people who are typically interested in open source projects. I see the value in having a single agreed-upon definition, I just don't think that's realistic without coining a new phrase (similar to how "libre" and "FLOSS" are used for viral licenses). Are you aware of any research showing the adoption of this definition is essentially universal? I'm genuinely curious about that. I'm fully willing to consider that my experience may be an outlier.
EDIT: Also want to point out that in my personal projects that I've made the source available I have exclusively used licenses that are compatible with your definition. But I'm currently working on a project that I intend to monetize, and I'm trying to figure out how to make it as open as possible without risking my ability to make money. Due to responses like yours that I've seen, I'm considering just keeping it closed. I think proprietary software gets less complaints than "source available" software, which is hilarious to me.
What you described doesn't seem to be related to looking for "what kind of open source" it is, but what kind of software it is in general. Just because it's on Github has no bearing on what kind of software it is. Take this, for example:
https://github.com/ValveSoftware/steam-for-linux
On Github - yes
Free/open source - no
Source available - no
Being ignorant of the taxonomy of the software landscape doesn't change that taxonomy. Open source is a meaningful term which has been used for a long time to refer to a specific set of criteria. It was established in the first place as an alternative criteria than "free software", which also has a well understood definition.
I don't have any scholarly research on the subject to put forward, but I can tell you that ignorance of the meaning of "open source" always comes from without. The community building open source software understands what it means, and it's only at the fringes - like HN, where open source hackers mingle freely with capitalists deseparately seeking an angle to turn into profit - where the issue muddies.
> Just because it's on Github has no bearing on what kind of software it is
Straw man.
> I don't have any scholarly research on the subject to put forward, but I can tell you that ignorance of the meaning of "open source" always comes from without. The community building open source software understands what it means.
So everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant? That seems a bit strong. I also find your us-vs-them framing concerning.
> capitalists deseparately seeking an angle to turn into profit
I think that the predatory capitalists are more helped by you making this a black and white issue and shaming people into adopting certain types of licenses that leave them open to large corporations glutting themselves off of liberally licensed projects (a la Mongo/Redis). Giving more power to boostrapped small businesses seems like a good idea to me, even if it means having a more liberal definition of "open source".
Anyhow, I think we're beyond the point of constructive debate here. I'll end by saying that I have mad respect for you. I love what you're doing with sourcehut (especially the minimalist design!), and wish you tons of success with that. I also love that you embrace decentralized projects like Mastodon. And I'm not so naive as to think these things are disconnected from your views on open source licensing. I respect those views. I don't even necessarily disagree with your positions, mostly with your approach to disseminating them.
I agree that this isn't likely to go anywhere more productive than it already has. However:
>by you [...] shaming people into adopting certain types of licenses that leave them open to large corporations glutting themselves off of liberally licensed projects
That's not what I've done here. I'm not shaming anyone for using this license. I'm shaming them for using this license and calling it open source. It's not.