9 ms·

At large? As you can see, there is room for a community with a different view on that. My personal definition of an "open source license" is that, as the name i

At large? As you can see, there is room for a community with a different view on that. My personal definition of an "open source license" is that, as the name implies, I can access the code, preferably without much gatekeeping (e.g., creating a free account in a private GitLab instance). And, to be honest, I prefer the BSL with an Additional Use Grant over any other license, because this is the most reliable option to ensure that the project has a future and won’t be abandoned because no one wants to invest their time for free.

immibis 2y ago
You are welcome to choose that, but in my opinion, it isn't open source. I think open source should means anyone can contribute or take, and contributions are shared, without undue discrimination. Nobody is forced to work on the project, but if they are then they have to give the results of their work back to the common pool they took from. You have just as much power to keep the project going as anyone else does, including the current "maintainer".
- AntonCTO 2y ago
  > but if they are then they *have to* give the results of their work back to the common pool they took from Well, here we go. Your "open" isn't so open in the end.
  - immibis 2y ago
    "open is when you have the right to make it closed"
satvikpendem 2y ago
You cannot redefine words because they don't fit with your personal definition. Open source has meant in accordance with the OSI, for quite a while.