Open source, closed source, and the value of code

Richard Gaskin ambassador at fourthworld.com
Tue Mar 1 20:57:10 EST 2016


Matt Maier wrote:

 > Unless Livecode modified the GPL it's still a Free software license,
 > written and interpreted by the FSF. Calling it Open Source is more
 > colloquial, and clearly doesn't cause problems in the vast majority of
 > cases. But, in this case, the inaccuracy is causing the confusion.

I think the confusion in this long thread is evidently broader that just 
the specific downstream aspects of the GPL. :)

But yes, the distinction is sometimes useful.  For myself, acknowledging 
how broadly "open source" is used to describe the superset, when I need 
to distinguish GPL-like provisions I tend to use "copy-left".

I'm from California.  Here we say "soda", while my friends from Iowa say 
"pop".  When discussing the differences between Glenlivet and Pepsi, 
whether I refer to the Pepsi as "soda" or "pop" is the smaller concern. 
  Either way, the reader knows they'll be able to drive after polishing 
off a bottle. :)


 > It's worth noting that most of the repositories in Github don't have
 > any license at all. That's not colloquial, that's just lazy, but that
 > also doesn't cause a problem in the vast majority of cases.

Au contraire, mon ami - it's been a problem for years:
<http://www.zdnet.com/article/github-improves-open-source-licensing-polices/>

That is, it's a problem if the code is useful. If the code is trivial 
nobody cares, but when it does something useful then having no declared 
license is a poison pill for both use and contribution.  No sane person 
would commit their business to using code that has no disclosed license 
terms.

That's an ongoing challenge with online venues like mailing lists and 
forums, and for myself when there's no declaration I only use code where 
I know the person who posted it and have a reasonably good understanding 
of their intentions.

When I don't know the poster's intentions I follow the old rule, "when 
in doubt leave it out."


 > I feel like it's important for people working through the nuances
 > of FOSS to understand the intent behind the different licenses. It
 > can be disorienting to think that everybody is just sharing stuff
 > and then to run into the seemingly harsh restrictions of the Free
 > software subset. Open Source is pretty inviting. Free places stick
 > limits on who is invited. It's confusing to people who haven't
 > studied it because "open source" literally means open up the source
 > from which the object was derived.

Definitely every bit as valuable to study as the proprietary licenses we 
encounter.  All legal documents require time to review and asses, and 
discuss their implications.

I won't hold it against if you use "free", but I'll still use "copy-left".

Just fergawsakes call it "Ubuntu GNU/Linux!" :)


 > However, "free/libre" doesn't mean make it as free as possible,
 > it means make it impossible for anyone to ever make it un-free.
 > So the "free/libre" label actually brings along MORE restrictions.

That last sentence is an excellent example of why study is useful:

What you refer to as "restrictions" the authors of the GPL call "freedoms".

Both are descriptive, and indeed describe the same things, so who am I 
to say which is best?

I try to use value-neutral terms when discussing such things, sometimes 
using phrases like "downstream provisions".

I have no problem with "requirements" myself, but I am more apt to use 
"freedom" than "viral": if nothing else "freedom" is not an inherently 
offensive word (kinda nice, actually) but many have expressed that they 
find "viral" offensive when it's applied to GPL terms, connoting a 
disease while many who choose it feel it's a cure.

I just try to be respective of local cultures in my travels.

-- 
  Richard Gaskin
  Fourth World Systems
  Software Design and Development for the Desktop, Mobile, and the Web
  ____________________________________________________________________
  Ambassador at FourthWorld.com                http://www.FourthWorld.com





More information about the use-livecode mailing list