▲ 264 ▼ "I support it only if it's open source" should be a more common viewpoint (vitalik.eth.limo) submitted 1 year ago by pdqcp@lemmy.dbzer0.com to c/opensource@lemmy.ml 37 comments fedilink hide all child comments cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/51038205 What are your thoughts? Any counter-counter points to the author's response to most concerns regarding open source?
[–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (11 children) ...or non-profit... But I agree... permalink fedilink source hideshow 11 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (10 children) If it's non profit AND not open source, it seems a bit shady, doesn't it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (9 children) Maybe, but not necessarily. You see, there could be plenty of reasons to protect ones code... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) Like backdoors, Lax security, technical debt, etc permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago Thanks for that pessimistic comment. permalink fedilink source parent [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) I don't know what could be the reason for a non-profit to not open-source the code of a publicly available tool/product, except to hide or keep their property permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (5 children) Is that not a good reason, if you are trying to help people, and competitors likely would damage that mission? There's a thousand possible reasons, and I really wonder why you can't imagine any of them... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) Because if you care about user you should be at least transparent to them, in your example you could make your codebase open-source with a license restricting it for commercial uses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children) You can't. Blocking commercial use stops a licence being open source. If you don't want commercial competition, then you need copyleft, so anyone using your code has to share their modifications with whoever they give binaries to. If they end up using your code to make a better product, then it'll have to be open source, too, and you can incorporate the improvements back into your version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Maybe I'm wrong but they are many type of "open-source" licenses, sure they do not respect the GNU Open Source but they are pretty reasonable and I think that it exists license that do not allow you to use it for commercial uses EDIT : my bad, I've seen that making the commercial uses forbidden is no more open source license but CC-NC so you're right :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) @foremanguy92_ @AnyOldName3 yes, unfortunately, you are wrong. The term "open source" also contains a clause about not restricting the use. Think "open cage", not just "open book". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation. While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 14 points 1 year ago (10 children) If it's non profit AND not open source, it seems a bit shady, doesn't it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (9 children) Maybe, but not necessarily. You see, there could be plenty of reasons to protect ones code... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) Like backdoors, Lax security, technical debt, etc permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago Thanks for that pessimistic comment. permalink fedilink source parent [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) I don't know what could be the reason for a non-profit to not open-source the code of a publicly available tool/product, except to hide or keep their property permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (5 children) Is that not a good reason, if you are trying to help people, and competitors likely would damage that mission? There's a thousand possible reasons, and I really wonder why you can't imagine any of them... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) Because if you care about user you should be at least transparent to them, in your example you could make your codebase open-source with a license restricting it for commercial uses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children) You can't. Blocking commercial use stops a licence being open source. If you don't want commercial competition, then you need copyleft, so anyone using your code has to share their modifications with whoever they give binaries to. If they end up using your code to make a better product, then it'll have to be open source, too, and you can incorporate the improvements back into your version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Maybe I'm wrong but they are many type of "open-source" licenses, sure they do not respect the GNU Open Source but they are pretty reasonable and I think that it exists license that do not allow you to use it for commercial uses EDIT : my bad, I've seen that making the commercial uses forbidden is no more open source license but CC-NC so you're right :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) @foremanguy92_ @AnyOldName3 yes, unfortunately, you are wrong. The term "open source" also contains a clause about not restricting the use. Think "open cage", not just "open book". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation. While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -2 points 1 year ago (9 children) Maybe, but not necessarily. You see, there could be plenty of reasons to protect ones code... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] BillyTheKid@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) Like backdoors, Lax security, technical debt, etc permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago Thanks for that pessimistic comment. permalink fedilink source parent [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) I don't know what could be the reason for a non-profit to not open-source the code of a publicly available tool/product, except to hide or keep their property permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (5 children) Is that not a good reason, if you are trying to help people, and competitors likely would damage that mission? There's a thousand possible reasons, and I really wonder why you can't imagine any of them... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) Because if you care about user you should be at least transparent to them, in your example you could make your codebase open-source with a license restricting it for commercial uses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children) You can't. Blocking commercial use stops a licence being open source. If you don't want commercial competition, then you need copyleft, so anyone using your code has to share their modifications with whoever they give binaries to. If they end up using your code to make a better product, then it'll have to be open source, too, and you can incorporate the improvements back into your version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Maybe I'm wrong but they are many type of "open-source" licenses, sure they do not respect the GNU Open Source but they are pretty reasonable and I think that it exists license that do not allow you to use it for commercial uses EDIT : my bad, I've seen that making the commercial uses forbidden is no more open source license but CC-NC so you're right :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) @foremanguy92_ @AnyOldName3 yes, unfortunately, you are wrong. The term "open source" also contains a clause about not restricting the use. Think "open cage", not just "open book". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation. While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] BillyTheKid@lemmy.ca 10 points 1 year ago (1 child) Like backdoors, Lax security, technical debt, etc permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago Thanks for that pessimistic comment. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -6 points 1 year ago Thanks for that pessimistic comment. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 year ago (6 children) I don't know what could be the reason for a non-profit to not open-source the code of a publicly available tool/product, except to hide or keep their property permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 6 child comments replies: [–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (5 children) Is that not a good reason, if you are trying to help people, and competitors likely would damage that mission? There's a thousand possible reasons, and I really wonder why you can't imagine any of them... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) Because if you care about user you should be at least transparent to them, in your example you could make your codebase open-source with a license restricting it for commercial uses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children) You can't. Blocking commercial use stops a licence being open source. If you don't want commercial competition, then you need copyleft, so anyone using your code has to share their modifications with whoever they give binaries to. If they end up using your code to make a better product, then it'll have to be open source, too, and you can incorporate the improvements back into your version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Maybe I'm wrong but they are many type of "open-source" licenses, sure they do not respect the GNU Open Source but they are pretty reasonable and I think that it exists license that do not allow you to use it for commercial uses EDIT : my bad, I've seen that making the commercial uses forbidden is no more open source license but CC-NC so you're right :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) @foremanguy92_ @AnyOldName3 yes, unfortunately, you are wrong. The term "open source" also contains a clause about not restricting the use. Think "open cage", not just "open book". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation. While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Core_of_Arden@lemmy.ml -1 points 1 year ago (5 children) Is that not a good reason, if you are trying to help people, and competitors likely would damage that mission? There's a thousand possible reasons, and I really wonder why you can't imagine any of them... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) Because if you care about user you should be at least transparent to them, in your example you could make your codebase open-source with a license restricting it for commercial uses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children) You can't. Blocking commercial use stops a licence being open source. If you don't want commercial competition, then you need copyleft, so anyone using your code has to share their modifications with whoever they give binaries to. If they end up using your code to make a better product, then it'll have to be open source, too, and you can incorporate the improvements back into your version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Maybe I'm wrong but they are many type of "open-source" licenses, sure they do not respect the GNU Open Source but they are pretty reasonable and I think that it exists license that do not allow you to use it for commercial uses EDIT : my bad, I've seen that making the commercial uses forbidden is no more open source license but CC-NC so you're right :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) @foremanguy92_ @AnyOldName3 yes, unfortunately, you are wrong. The term "open source" also contains a clause about not restricting the use. Think "open cage", not just "open book". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation. While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 5 points 1 year ago (4 children) Because if you care about user you should be at least transparent to them, in your example you could make your codebase open-source with a license restricting it for commercial uses permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children) You can't. Blocking commercial use stops a licence being open source. If you don't want commercial competition, then you need copyleft, so anyone using your code has to share their modifications with whoever they give binaries to. If they end up using your code to make a better product, then it'll have to be open source, too, and you can incorporate the improvements back into your version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Maybe I'm wrong but they are many type of "open-source" licenses, sure they do not respect the GNU Open Source but they are pretty reasonable and I think that it exists license that do not allow you to use it for commercial uses EDIT : my bad, I've seen that making the commercial uses forbidden is no more open source license but CC-NC so you're right :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) @foremanguy92_ @AnyOldName3 yes, unfortunately, you are wrong. The term "open source" also contains a clause about not restricting the use. Think "open cage", not just "open book". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation. While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] AnyOldName3@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (3 children) You can't. Blocking commercial use stops a licence being open source. If you don't want commercial competition, then you need copyleft, so anyone using your code has to share their modifications with whoever they give binaries to. If they end up using your code to make a better product, then it'll have to be open source, too, and you can incorporate the improvements back into your version. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Maybe I'm wrong but they are many type of "open-source" licenses, sure they do not respect the GNU Open Source but they are pretty reasonable and I think that it exists license that do not allow you to use it for commercial uses EDIT : my bad, I've seen that making the commercial uses forbidden is no more open source license but CC-NC so you're right :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) @foremanguy92_ @AnyOldName3 yes, unfortunately, you are wrong. The term "open source" also contains a clause about not restricting the use. Think "open cage", not just "open book". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation. While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] foremanguy92_@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children) Maybe I'm wrong but they are many type of "open-source" licenses, sure they do not respect the GNU Open Source but they are pretty reasonable and I think that it exists license that do not allow you to use it for commercial uses EDIT : my bad, I've seen that making the commercial uses forbidden is no more open source license but CC-NC so you're right :) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) @foremanguy92_ @AnyOldName3 yes, unfortunately, you are wrong. The term "open source" also contains a clause about not restricting the use. Think "open cage", not just "open book". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation. While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] chebra@mstdn.io 3 points 1 year ago (1 child) @foremanguy92_ @AnyOldName3 yes, unfortunately, you are wrong. The term "open source" also contains a clause about not restricting the use. Think "open cage", not just "open book". permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation. While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] HumanPenguin@feddit.uk 2 points 1 year ago Only some definitions of open source state that. The concept has existed long before the free software foundation. While personally agree with the FSF. To say it is an exclusive definition of open source is just outright false. permalink fedilink source parent