Linux: vim isn't moe

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Serious Hardware/Software Crap > YOSPOS > Linux: vim isn't moe

«‹›1093 »

Best Bi Geek Squid: Mar 25, 2016

hip-hop desk-top operating system

# ? Jan 25, 2021 01:26

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? Apr 19, 2024 09:06

Optimus_Rhyme: Apr 15, 2007; are you that mainframe hacker guy?

OSI mad

quote:

We�ve seen that several companies have abandoned their original dedication to the open source community by switching their core products from an open source license, one approved by the Open Source Initiative, to a �fauxpen� source license. The hallmark of a fauxpen source license is that those who made the switch claim that their product continues to remain �open� under the new license, but the new license actually has taken away user rights.

The license du jour is the Server Side Public License. This license was submitted to the Open Source Initiative for approval but later withdrawn by the license steward when it became clear that the license would not be approved.

Open source licenses are the foundation for the open source software ecosystem, a system that fosters and facilitates the collaborative development of software. Fauxpen source licenses allow a user to view the source code but do not allow other highly important rights protected by the Open Source Definition, such as the right to make use of the program for any field of endeavor. By design, and as explained by the most recent adopter, Elastic, in a post it unironically titled �Doubling Down on Open,� Elastic says that it now can �restrict cloud service providers from offering our software as a service� in violation of OSD6. Elastic didn�t double down, it threw its cards in.

And the software commons are now poorer for it. The Elastic projects were offered under the Apache license. Outside contributors donated time and energy with the understanding that their work was going towards the greater good, the public software commons. Now, instead, their contributions are embedded in a proprietary product. If they want to enjoy the fruits of their own and their co-contributors� labor, they have to agree to a proprietary license or fork.

This is not to say that Elastic, or any company, shouldn�t adopt whatever license is appropriate for its own business needs. That may be a proprietary license, whether closed source or with source available. The Open Source Initiative strongly believes that the open source development model is the better way to develop software and results in a superior product. But we also recognize that it is not the right choice for everyone in all cases. A company may find that its business needs and direction have changed over time, such that the original license choice is interfering with their business model. A switch may be the right choice.

But Elastic�s relicensing is not evidence of any failure of the open source licensing model or a gap in open source licenses. It is simply that Elastic�s current business model is inconsistent with what open source licenses are designed to do. Its current business desires are what proprietary licenses (which includes source available) are designed for.

What a company may not do is claim or imply that software under a license that has not been approved by the Open Source Initiative, much less a license that does not meet the Open Source Definition, is open source software. It�s deception, plain and simple, to claim that the software has all the benefits and promises of open source when it does not.

Signed,
The OSI Board of Directors

brb conna trademark "fauxpen source"

e:

https://twitter.com/h0mbre_/status/1353406764423798784

Optimus_Rhyme fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jan 25, 2021

# ? Jan 25, 2021 01:33

Nomnom Cookie: Aug 30, 2009

Optimus_Rhyme posted:

OSI mad

open source can't fail. only we can fail open source

# ? Jan 25, 2021 01:46

xtal: Jan 9, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

I decided that I'm just going to go the djb route and not use licenses. They're more trouble than they're worth.

# ? Jan 25, 2021 01:50

carry on then: Jul 10, 2010; by VideoGames
(and can't post for 10 years!)

Optimus_Rhyme posted:

OSI mad

brb conna trademark "fauxpen source"

e:

https://twitter.com/h0mbre_/status/1353406764423798784

thought this was recent but i guess not

https://twitter.com/h0mbre_/status/1353431118025011200?s=20

# ? Jan 25, 2021 01:54

Sniep: Mar 28, 2004; All I needed was that fatty blunt...

King of Breakfast

if in doubt why not just bsd license it

# ? Jan 25, 2021 01:55

The_Franz: Aug 8, 2003

gpl is good for large pieces of software that you don't want some company to just take, tweak a bit and use for their own purposes without having to give anything back (see: freebsd and sony)

bsd/zlib/mit is good for smaller libraries that aim to become standards, because it means people will actually use them and most likely contribute useful bits back

# ? Jan 25, 2021 02:11

pram: Jun 10, 2001

gpl 3 is a good way to ensure your code is never used for anything useful

# ? Jan 25, 2021 02:17

Optimus_Rhyme: Apr 15, 2007; are you that mainframe hacker guy?

Yeah SSLP is GLP for cloud. Like "oh you wanna use Elastic/greylog in your cloud tool and made a bunch of change but dont want to give back? gently caress you" its basically GPL for SaaS era and OSI is mad as gently caress (since they're mostly funded by cloud and their board is a lot of cloud people).

also this:

pram posted:

gpl 3 is a good way to ensure your code is never used for anything useful

my code is specifically gpl3 for this reason

# ? Jan 25, 2021 02:21

in a well actually: Jan 26, 2011; dude, you gotta end it on the rhyme

pram posted:

gpl 3 is a good way to ensure your code is never used for anything useful

agpl is even better

# ? Jan 25, 2021 02:24

xtal: Jan 9, 2011; by Fluffdaddy

AGPL was necessary because of the GPL's networking loophole. The understanding of software distribution changed. Now it changed again and there's another loophole and another revision is needed.

OSI already certified AGPL which is almost identical to SSPL. The difference is about SaaS, but it doesn't say you can't use the software as part of your service, it says you have to release your software as open source if you do. Which is completely reasonable.

So OSI is complaining about software that isn't open source enough, and the reason it isn't open source enough is because it makes your software open source. They're saying you have to make your code free so mine doesn't have to be.

xtal fucked around with this message at 02:36 on Jan 25, 2021

# ? Jan 25, 2021 02:31

pseudorandom name: May 6, 2007

The_Franz posted:

deaktop windows hasn't run on anything but intel since the mid-90s when you could run nt4 on ppc and alpha*

*with no software

Windows still supports and is still supported on 32-bit CPUs or 32-bit installations on 64-bit CPUs.

# ? Jan 25, 2021 02:31

Nitrousoxide: May 30, 2011; do not buy a oneplus phone

pseudorandom name posted:

Windows still supports and is still supported on 32-bit CPUs or 32-bit installations on 64-bit CPUs.

Next version of Windows will break that though!

# ? Jan 25, 2021 02:33

mystes: May 31, 2006

I don't know if it meets the osi definition or not but I'm so sick of this proliferation of novel and increasingly unclear licenses where it would take a year of litigation just to find out what they even actually mean in the first place.

# ? Jan 25, 2021 02:34

Rufus Ping: Dec 27, 2006; I'm a Friend of Rodney Nano

mystes posted:

I don't know if it meets the osi definition or not but I'm so sick of this proliferation of novel and increasingly unclear licenses where it would take a year of litigation just to find out what they even actually mean in the first place.

They might be worded in a way that lawyers consider dangerously over broad, or that wouldn't hold up in court, but I don't think it's at all unclear whose lovely business model these licences are intended to kneecap

# ? Jan 25, 2021 03:00

Nomnom Cookie: Aug 30, 2009

mystes posted:

I don't know if it meets the osi definition or not but I'm so sick of this proliferation of novel and increasingly unclear licenses where it would take a year of litigation just to find out what they even actually mean in the first place.

I read https://webassets.mongodb.com/_com_assets/legal/SSPL-compared-to-AGPL.pdf just now and its pretty clear what server side public license is intended to accomplish: it's AGPL3 + SaaS companies must make their tooling public

question then: is elastic releasing their tooling for elastic cloud?

# ? Jan 25, 2021 04:52

Rufus Ping: Dec 27, 2006; I'm a Friend of Rodney Nano

Presumably they don't have to, being the copyright holders rather than licensees

# ? Jan 25, 2021 05:35

eschaton: Mar 7, 2007; Don't you just hate when you wind up in a store with people who are in a socioeconomic class that is pretty obviously about two levels lower than your own?

Optimus_Rhyme posted:

Yeah SSLP is GLP for cloud. Like "oh you wanna use Elastic/greylog in your cloud tool and made a bunch of change but dont want to give back? gently caress you" its basically GPL for SaaS era and OSI is mad as gently caress (since they're mostly funded by cloud and their board is a lot of cloud people).

it�s not GPL for cloud it�s GPLv3 for cloud

what�s really needed is GPLv2 for cloud, e.g. �if you make changes to this and use it in a cloud service, you have to share your changes to it� instead of �you have to give away ever last bit of intellectual property within a mile of this code�

# ? Jan 25, 2021 06:25

Jonny 290: May 5, 2005; [ASK] me about OS/2 Warp

Checkin in on the linux thread how we doin folks

# ? Jan 25, 2021 06:26

FlapYoJacks: Feb 12, 2009

Jonny 290 posted:

Checkin in on the linux thread how we doin folks

good news! Linux is on the desktop! Oh? you didn�t hear?

# ? Jan 25, 2021 06:27

infernal machines: Oct 11, 2012; we monitor many frequencies. we listen always. came a voice, out of the babel of tongues, speaking to us. it played us a mighty dub.

no, sound isn't working

# ? Jan 25, 2021 06:28

FlapYoJacks: Feb 12, 2009

infernal machines posted:

no, sound isn't working

# ? Jan 25, 2021 06:29

Nomnom Cookie: Aug 30, 2009

Rufus Ping posted:

Presumably they don't have to, being the copyright holders rather than licensees

that aspect is certainly reminiscent of proprietary licenses�elastic is using the license to give them an advantage in profiting from elasticsearch. AGPL wouldn�t do that, because AWS and other hosts aren�t forking elasticsearch, not in any significant way

eschaton posted:

it�s not GPL for cloud it�s GPLv3 for cloud

what�s really needed is GPLv2 for cloud, e.g. �if you make changes to this and use it in a cloud service, you have to share your changes to it� instead of �you have to give away ever last bit of intellectual property within a mile of this code�

you�re describing the AGPL

# ? Jan 25, 2021 07:46

BobHoward: Feb 13, 2012; The only thing white people deserve is a bullet to their empty skull

The_Franz posted:

deaktop windows hasn't run on anything but intel since the mid-90s when you could run nt4 on ppc and alpha*

*with no software

others have mentioned arm but that's weaksauce since much like ppc, alpha, and mips, nobody cares about windows on arm (except m1 mac users, lol)

the place where fat binaries would've done wonders for windows was the x86-64 transition. just look at this microsoft support page, still relevant in tyool 2020:

https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/office/choose-between-the-64-bit-or-32-bit-version-of-office-2dee7807-8f95-4d0c-b5fe-6c6f49b8d261

over in mac land, there was never any such thing as a 32-bit or 64-bit edition of macos. there was just macos, and it gained support for 64-bit over time. its own binaries and libraries were dual architecture, or even quad during the window of time where ppc32 and ppc64 were supported alongside x86. ISVs were also able to ship just one thing.

literally the only speed bump apple ever subjected users to with the 64-bit transition was when they cut off 32-bit support in macos catalina when people still cared about running 32-bit only binaries (mostly old-ish games)

# ? Jan 25, 2021 08:44

cowboy beepboop: Feb 24, 2001

eschaton posted:

it�s not GPL for cloud it�s GPLv3 for cloud

what�s really needed is GPLv2 for cloud, e.g. �if you make changes to this and use it in a cloud service, you have to share your changes to it� instead of �you have to give away ever last bit of intellectual property within a mile of this code�

that's agpl

# ? Jan 25, 2021 10:23

Cybernetic Vermin: Apr 18, 2005

eschaton posted:

it�s not GPL for cloud it�s GPLv3 for cloud

what�s really needed is GPLv2 for cloud, e.g. �if you make changes to this and use it in a cloud service, you have to share your changes to it� instead of �you have to give away ever last bit of intellectual property within a mile of this code�

actually turns out what is "needed" is whatever the people writing the software says is needed

# ? Jan 25, 2021 10:43

Progressive JPEG: Feb 19, 2003

osi only accepted gpl begrudgingly to begin with so whining about sspl is on brand for them

# ? Jan 25, 2021 17:35

Nomnom Cookie: Aug 30, 2009

my stepdads beer posted:

that's agpl

this is infringing on my previous post, which is not licensed for plagiarism

# ? Jan 25, 2021 20:18

Nomnom Cookie: Aug 30, 2009

sspl certainly contravenes the spirit of open source. it's clearly designed to make competing with the copyright holder's hosting business effectively impossible. section 13 might as well just say "you are not allowed to offer hosted elasticsearch for money", and the softer language is just obfuscating the intent behind it so excessively literal nerds will swallow the change. explicitly limiting what you can do with the code would be a bridge too far, right.

on the other hand, the spirit of open source was defined by idealistic nerds who weren't thinking about commercial software in any realistic way. the nerds kind of assumed you could start a business and do business stuff and then people would pay you to develop your software. not really, not reliably, not repeatably. actually making money off open source means combining it with proprietary code and selling the combination: open core is obvious, and elastic previously tried that but no one wants x-pack. now they're trying hosting with elastic cloud, where the proprietary component is the tooling used to provide the service. but AWS is better at building an elasticsearch hosting business than elastic is, partly because they're AWS and partly because they don't need to fund development of elasticsearch

to the extent that elasticsearch will probably stagnate if elastic dies--after all, they are the primary developer and there's no other company that would obviously benefit from shoveling large amounts of money into that git repo--elastic doing what they can to have a viable business model is a good thing. i personally will never pay anyone for elasticsearch hosting, so i'm freeloading no matter what, but i would like to keep getting more features for free. please head on over to https://www.elastic.co/cloud/ and start your free trial today

# ? Jan 25, 2021 20:34

NihilCredo: Jun 6, 2011; iram omni possibili modo preme:
plus una illa te diffamabit, quam multæ virtutes commendabunt

beat me to mostly the same post

the sspl model is 'this source code is freely available to anyone that isn't our direct competitor' and i think that's a perfectly reasonable and quite generous license model - particularly if every other more generous license has been shown to be financially unviable! - but if you say that's open source then osi is entirely correct in calling bullshit

on the other side, osi (much like gnu) has a manichean vision where everything is either open source or ~~doubleplusungood~~ proprietary. but to say that sspl code is just as bad as proprietary code is asinine.

(hell, i'll go further and say that AFAIK source available software with reproducible builds is perfectly respectful of muh freedoms. as long as i can know exactly what i'm running on my hardware, i think it's entirely fair for the people who wrote the drat thing to say 'here's the code I wrote, you can run it as-is or not at all, your choice')

# ? Jan 25, 2021 20:46

mystes: May 31, 2006

Shared source proprietary is definitely better than just having a binary in various ways, but it's just annoying that people always insist on describing their non-open source shared source licenses as "open source."

# ? Jan 25, 2021 20:48

in a well actually: Jan 26, 2011; dude, you gotta end it on the rhyme

open source, as something distinct from free software, has always been a lie; from when it slithered illborn from a creep into the bazaar. if you can�t call it free software for any reason it�s not insufficiently open to make it useless in any way that matters

vis open standards behind expensive doc or membership fees, FRAND patent licensing, etc

# ? Jan 25, 2021 21:08

mystes: May 31, 2006

Regardless of whether the name "open source" is dumb and whether the osi should exist, their actual definition is effectively the same so it doesn't matter.

# ? Jan 25, 2021 21:11

pram: Jun 10, 2001

PCjr sidecar posted:

open source, as something distinct from free software, has always been a lie; from when it slithered illborn from a creep into the bazaar. if you can�t call it free software for any reason it�s not insufficiently open to make it useless in any way that matters

vis open standards behind expensive doc or membership fees, FRAND patent licensing, etc

source your quotes

# ? Jan 25, 2021 21:20

Best Bi Geek Squid: Mar 25, 2016

Now look, boys, I ain't much of a hand at makin' speeches, but I got a pretty fair idea that something doggone important is goin' on back there. And I got a fair idea the kinda personal emotions that some of you fellas may be thinkin'. Heck, I reckon you wouldn't even be human bein's if you didn't have some pretty strong personal feelin's about software licensing.

I want you to remember one thing, the folks back home is a-countin' on you and by golly, we ain't about to let 'em down. I tell you something else, if this thing turns out to be half as important as I figure it just might be, I'd say that you're all in line for some important promotions and personal citations when this thing's over with. That goes for ever' last one of you regardless of your race, color or your creed. Now let's get this thing on the hump — we got some codin'' to do.

# ? Jan 25, 2021 22:10

Cybernetic Vermin: Apr 18, 2005

mystes posted:

Regardless of whether the name "open source" is dumb and whether the osi should exist, their actual definition is effectively the same so it doesn't matter.

the same as what? near as i can tell the osi is trying to lay claim to the term on absolutely no grounds.

# ? Jan 25, 2021 22:23

Jonny 290: May 5, 2005; [ASK] me about OS/2 Warp

the only viable software license is D&R

https://www.openhub.net/licenses/death-and-repudiation

# ? Jan 25, 2021 22:29

mystes: May 31, 2006

Cybernetic Vermin posted:

the same as what? near as i can tell the osi is trying to lay claim to the term on absolutely no grounds.

The same as the FSF's definition of free software (which includes "non-copylefted free software" and therefore permissive open source licensed like mit/bsd). I was responding to the comment about "open source, as something distinct from free software."

# ? Jan 25, 2021 22:30