Thoughts on Open Source

[Trygve]

Hi, I recently wrote this small article about Open Source Lisences. I wrote it because there were some lisences I just did'nt understand how could be called Open Source, I summarized these thoughts into the text below. And if anyone who has a deeper understanding about Open Source than I could enlighten me ot the questions I point out. That would be great.

Thoughts on Open Source.

When you write software, you are ultimately in charge of what licence you want to distribute it with. This is a right you have as a software distributor. I don't want to challenge this, but I want to set focus on what I think is miss use of the Open Source name, and how I understand the original licence.

Leaving out the good bits.
There is a small tendency when creating a new licence to skip some of the more important bits. I would say that one of the fundamental points of Open Source is that the source is available to whomever wants it. Be it via CD / FTP or other means. Some licences, like the Vovida Software Licence, grants a user the right to modify and redistribute the software as he pleases. But they omit that the user has to make his source available to others. This makes a conundrum because the licence states that any derivatives from the original source code, must contain the stated licence. And that licence states:
«Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met.»

This licence would be fine and dandy, were it not for the fact that the user is not obligated to make his modified version of the source code available. And then we're suddenly not talking free as in beer any more. The source is not open, in my opinion unless the licence ensures that the source is available. A optimal wording is found in paragraph 4 in the Common Public Licence, and it reads as follows:
«iv) states that source code for the Program is available from such Contributor, and informs licensees how to obtain it in a reasonable manner on or through a medium customarily used for software exchange.»

Here, have my cake and eat it too.
What breaks down a Open Source community. I would say that when you permit users to change the software licence at their own will, you have taken a step in the wrong direction. The Apache Licence 2.0 grants users the right to add their own clauses to the licence (as long as it does not impose on the others). And allows the users to use a different licence for their own source code within the derivative work. Does this not infringe on the very idea of Open Source? That the source code should be available for anyone to see, and make changes to? What good is it then to explicitly state in your licence that users don't have to follow it, as long as they hold copyright to the changes they make.

Do you really need a new licence?
To be fair, most modified Open Source licences only state that you may not use the original product name in your derivative work. But we then end up with a lot of different licences And their wording may be a little off in some places, and that leads to exploits like the ones stated above. I propose that we need a new licence. Yes the remedy for licence overflows is another one. Just a standard Open Source Licence, that includes:

«Original Software Title_________
Products derived from this software may not be called Original Software Title, nor may Original Software Title appear in their name, without prior written permission from the original licensor.»

This text is part of Creative Commons, and you are free to:
to copy, distribute, display, and perform the work
to make derivative works
to make commercial use of the work

The entire licence in full is available here. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/legalcode
trygve@montyphyton.net

[Cabhan]

See, here's the way that I (and others) see the situation.

Open-source software is a privilege, and not a right. When you buy a book, are you allowed to add on to the book and redistribute it? Of course not. If you buy a toaster, are you allowed to make copies of that toaster and distribute them your way? No.

It is rather the same with software. Having said that, I believe in open-source, and I believe that it is a kindness and ultimately, an advantage if your software is open-source. I distribute code under the 2-Clause BSD license, which essentially says: "I own the copyright, this is open-source, ANYONE CAN USE IT IN ANYTHING THEY WANT". A more formal definition can be found at:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php

Is the GPL free? No. It shackles people to open-source software. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it certainly is not free. Similarly, if I've written a program that a business needs to use and distribute, why should they be forced to re-invent the wheel?

A perfect example of this is Mac OS X. Mac OS X is based on Darwin, which is a BSD kernel. Mac OS X took Darwin, added onto it, and released their own proprietary and closed-source OS, but does contribute back to the BSD community (obviously not everything, but they do contribute).

In my mind, a BSD license will ensure that businesses can use and contribute to open-source, while allowing other projects to (as a gesture of good will) release projects as open-source.

[CodeRoot]

The central point of Trygve's post (as I see it) is that any license that calls itself an "Open Source" license should/must - by definition - guarantee the availability of the source code.

EDIT:
And with this principle I agree 100%...

[d38dm8nw81k1ng]

If you buy a toaster, are you allowed to make copies of that toaster and distribute them your way? No.

yes you are. sale of goods act in the UK permits this. yes, i've actually read the relevant sections too (for an unrelated subject).

[Trygve]

Open-source software is a privilege, and not a right. When you buy a book, are you allowed to add on to the book and redistribute it? Of course not. If you buy a toaster, are you allowed to make copies of that toaster and distribute them your way? No.

Yes ofcourse. I make that clear in the first paragraph, that you, the creator decide what lisence you wan't to use. But I think that hindering others from viewing the source code, or allowing them do make modifications to the lisence when you claim that it is Open Source, is missuse of the name.

The central point of Trygve's post (as I see it) is that any license that calls itself an "Open Source" license should/must - by definition - guarantee the availability of the source code.

EDIT:
And with this principle I agree 100%...

Yes, this is correct.

[X.Cyclop]

The Apache Licence 2.0 grants users the right to add their own clauses to the licence (as long as it does not impose on the others). And allows the users to use a different licence for their own source code within the derivative work. Does this not infringe on the very idea of Open Source? That the source code should be available for anyone to see, and make changes to?

It should...

Apple has "stolen" from *BSD... "Mashitosh".

I hate Apache/BSD licence. It was approved by the FSF but not by the OSI.

[techieMoe]

Apple has "stolen" from *BSD... "Mashitosh".

Without proper context and proof of any wrongdoing this is just a flame. Keep comments like that to yourself unless you have substantive evidence to support it.

[X.Cyclop]

Well, that was a "stupidity". With an Apache/BSD licence you can do whatever you want.

I found this.

[techieMoe]

Well, that was a "stupidity".

Oh. Well in that case carry on. We have no rules against stupidities.

[daacosta]

Oh. Well in that case carry on. We have no rules against stupidities.

We don't? :o