alt Hacker NewsO'Sassy or whatever is certainly Source available, and not Open Source. DHH can pound sand.
I used to think the pedantry was foolish, but I've grown to understand the distinction. It's one thing to criticize the OSI's claim to the term, and I do think they could do a better job at getting out ahead of new licenses and whatnot, but even if you ignore OSI entirely then the distinction is of substantial value.
I do think we need more Source Available licenses in the world. Certainly I would greatly appreciate being able to browse the source of the many proprietary software systems I've administered over the years.
At the same time it is not worth it if the spirit of Open Source is watered down.
Replies
> I do think we need more Source Available licenses in the world. Certainly I would greatly appreciate being able to browse the source of the many proprietary software systems I've administered over the years.
I think we need more differentiation and different terms. Because O'Sassy / FSL / whatever that just forbids other companies from selling the same software as a Service is quite different than just the source being available with no rights at all, or with restrictions on who can use it and when (size of company, for profit or not, production, etc).
> I do think we need more Source Available licenses in the world. Certainly I would greatly appreciate being able to browse the source of the many proprietary software systems I've administered over the years.
Yeah. Releasing a project under a source-available proprietary license and calling it Open Source, or doing a rugpull and changing an established Open Source license to a source-available proprietary license, is the kind of thing that causes the most grief. If you release something under a source-available proprietary license and make no pretenses about it being something else, and the alternative was not releasing it at all, it's a (slight) improvement.