SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Tuesday at OSCON, the Open Source Initiative (OSI) has continued the celebration of 20 years of open source. A blog post at the OSI reflects on how Open Source fits in with pre-existing intitiatives.
Open source did not emerge from a void. It was consciously a marketing programme for the already-15-year-old idea of free software and arose in the context of both the GNU Project and the BSD community and their history (stretching back to the late 70s). We chose to reflect this in the agenda for our celebration track at OSCON.
But that doesn't mean its inception is irrelevant. The consensus to define open source at the VA Linux meeting and the subsequent formation of OSI and acceptance of the Open Source Definition changed the phrase from descriptive to a term of art accepted globally. It created a movement and a market and consequently spread software freedom far beyond anyone's expectations. That has to be worth celebrating.
Wikipedia's entry on Open Source provides a great deal of information on its origin and application in multiple fields besides just software.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DannyB on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:14PM (10 children)
I remember a movement a few years ago, maybe 3 or 4, where some people started saying they were not going to put any license on their code. They didn't want to bother even picking out an OSI approved license that fit their wishes.
It was like: hey, I just want people to use my code. I'm not going to sue anyone. I don't care about all the pages of legal details about licenses. I don't want to ever have lawyers involved. Etc.
What I say: If you don't put a license on your code, I won't touch it, not even with a ten foot pole. Without a valid copyright license allowing me to exercise certain rights, you could sue me later. Whether you like it or not, the law recognizes copyright the moment the work is created. Without some kind of license, I am vulnerable to a copyright infringement suit if I use your code. If you're really such a good guy, promising not to sue, then put that promise in writing -- it's called a license and is legally binding. There are a bunch of different OSI approved licenses to choose from.
Part of the problem was that Github was allowing a project to be created without picking a license.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday July 18 2018, @09:59PM (2 children)
This according to Richard himself: "If there is no explicit license it defaults to All Rights Reserved".
To provide your code for download on your own website implies that your user has a license to download and use it but DOES NOT imply that they have a license to redistribute it - even if they don't patch it.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 3, Informative) by maxwell demon on Wednesday July 18 2018, @11:18PM
Strictly speaking it only implies that you are allowed to download it. I'd also say it implies the license to look at it. But unless explicitly specified, you cannot even imply the license to compile it, let alone use it for some specific purpose.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 19 2018, @12:49AM
You're stating my problem with No License.
I may (questionably) be able to download it. But I have NO rights to do ANYTHING with it. So why even download it.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Wednesday July 18 2018, @10:22PM (4 children)
I like the MIT license, BSD isn't bad either. Here's the code, have at it. You can't sue me and I can't sue you.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday July 19 2018, @02:15AM (2 children)
I'll take your code, squash some bugs, and substantially improve it. Thanks, my product is awesome now. Then I'll lock it down and never give you back the improvements. Not even interested in collaborating with you but feel free to BSD license any fixes you might make.
(Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Thursday July 19 2018, @07:49PM (1 child)
A. Are you trying to be hurtful? Because that's the weakest form of envy-ooooooh that's not faaaaaaaair-hurt I can imagine.
B. How do you think that's any different from what most software thieves do with GPL and every other form of available-for-inspection source anyway?
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 20 2018, @03:40AM
A. Corporations don't feel envy.
B. Is that a solvable problem?
Anyway, that's why *I* use GPL instead of other licenses. It's interesting to let loose a creation and see what other people do with it. Much better than having code I write hoovered up by some corporation never to be seen again. Works for me, might not work for everyone.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:51PM
I also like MIT and BSD. I also like Apache 2.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 2) by shortscreen on Thursday July 19 2018, @05:40AM (1 child)
There is a license for people who can't bring themselves to care about licenses.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlicense [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Thursday July 19 2018, @01:50PM
I understand the sentiment of not caring about licenses. I think it is a shame that we must waste so much time on that.
It is the proprietary software, the music, movie and other industry, and greedy corrupt politicians that force us to have to care about licenses.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.