SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
It's increasingly hard to see how software freedom is present in cases when there's no realistic community access to source code. The barriers these days can come from complex codebases that no single mind can grasp or use of open-but-closed models.
As a consequence, OSI receives more complaints from community members about "open yet closed" than any other topic. Companies of all sizes who loudly tout their love for open source yet withhold source code from non-customers generate the most enquiries of this type. When approached, OSI contacts these companies on behalf of the community but the response is always that they are "within their rights" under the relevant open source licenses and can do what they please.
[...] Interestingly it's common that the companies involved obtained the source code they are monetising under an open source license, while they themselves own the copyrights to a tiny percentage of the code. They can be considered to have enclosed the commons, enjoying the full benefits of open source themselves — and celebrating it — but excluding others from collaboration on the same terms.
Source: Is Open Yet Closed Still OK?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by hendrikboom on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:13PM (8 children)
People seem to be confusing "Open Source" with Free Software. No surprises there; the OSI's definition of "Open Source" was intended to foment this kind of confusion.
Yes, it's good that when you buy software you get source, which is what the "Open Source" definition requires. But nothing in the definition says you can redistribute. You get to use it, modify it to your needs, and if the company that licenced it to you loses interest, you can still fix bugs yourself if that should become necessary.
That's what you get with open source. But it's not the same as free software. You are not allowed to redistribute.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by canopic jug on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:18PM
Kind of. OSS was meant as a transition from proprietary to Free software. There is a lot of idelogical opposition to Free software and those opposing it put their weight into OSS alone to try to slow or stop a full transition.
Of course lost in all that is the historical fact that prior to the 1980s, it was just called software and even the corporations tended to provide the source.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:37PM (5 children)
Huh? Free redistribution is the very first criterion in the Open Source Definition. The whole thing is almost exactly the same text as the Debian Free Software Guidelines (since it was originally adapted from that).
(Score: -1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 03 2017, @03:50PM (4 children)
It shouldn't be. And this is why nobody respects the free software people.
Open source is about having access to the source to look at and patch. It does not and should not include a requirement about redistributing those changes and how that should be handled. This is something that the extremists use as a wedge. It's great if you can release those modifications or take the software and extend it in different ways, but it's ideological nonsense to claim that the source isn't open because you're not allowed to redistribute it.
And BTW, citing Debian is not doing you any favors, those are the same assholes that have ice weasel because they didn't think they needed to respect Firefox's generous licensing policy with respect to trademarks. A very anti-user stance to take. If it's called Fx, then it should be Fx.
(Score: 5, Informative) by requerdanos on Sunday December 03 2017, @05:19PM (3 children)
You are either meticulously trolling at a very high level, or very, very misinformed; you're so good, I can't tell which.
Contrast that with the Open Source Definition [opensource.org] simple, clear requirement to redistribute those changes and how that should be handled:
"must include source code", "must allow distribution in source code... form", "there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code", pretty simple requirements. Someone who gets free software and then doesn't publish their changes is not publishing "Open Source" software. Example: Microsoft used BSD's TCP/IP code in their "Windows" product; BSD's code was free and open source software, but Windows isn't, not even if you buy a license to look at the proprietary source (because of the source code distribution requirement above). Frankly, if someone claims otherwise, they're not speaking reasonably nor rationally.
No, such a claim would simply mean that you (1) have seen the official Open Source Definition, and (2) can read.
A few minor corrections here.
Us "free software people" don't get a lot of respect, but this probably isn't why.
(Score: 1) by petecox on Sunday December 03 2017, @10:43PM
Iceweasel is a much prettier name! :)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @01:44AM (1 child)
First of all, you're using a tautology here. Open source means that you can see and modify the code, adding a redistribution requirement makes little sense. Yes, we should, but what do you call code then that is available for looking at, but is only distributed through one source?
Secondly, same deal there, it's an ideological argument, referencing ideologues doesn't really make it easier to ignore that it's an ideological argument to have. There are tons of opensource licenses out there with varying degrees of openness to them.
Calling Fx something else was completely their call. They could have just used the source that was provided and the licensing and gotten to use the mark, but they chose not to. Choosing to name it Ice Weasel was a dickish move that deserves to be called out.
And yes, this kind of thing is precisely why you guys don't get respect. From the asinine requirements for something to be "free" software to requiring distribution rights in order for something to be open. If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps not having crappy code and crappy licenses would help.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 04 2017, @04:52AM
If you want to be taken seriously, perhaps learn the meaning of words before you use them. If you're looking for a meaningful distinction between "open source software" and "free software", as used by the technically-literate population of the planet, I'm afraid you're barking up the wrong drainpipe.
The phrases you are looking for, to describe the kind of software you're talking about, are "shared source" or "source available".
(Score: 1) by steveg on Thursday December 07 2017, @05:41PM
Have you actually looked at OSI's Open Source Definition?
Provision 2 specifically requires redistribution.
"The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."