Tweet
This case seems to highlight the difference between "open source" and "free software".
-
-
I have already heard people call the FSF radical, but never the OSI. Flax is NOT Open Source by the OSI's definition, the only valid definition (for "Free Software", the valid definition is the one of the FSF, and Flax is not Free Software either). This has nothing to do with license wars like "True Open Source is BSD", "True Open Source is GPL", "True Open Source is Apache" or "True Open Source is not CDDL".Originally posted by birdie View Post
Flax is Source Available, as is Unreal Engine (you can read the source freely but most pay royalties if you make money with your creation). For a Free/Open Source game engine, use Godot.
Notice that Flax devs themselves do NOT claim that their product is Open Source (they claim to be Linux-friendly though, which seems to be true).Last edited by ALRBP; 29 March 2021, 01:02 AM.Comment
-
Who cares... the fact is they retain the right to close it, but that would just kill all their userbase. Also there are plenty of softwares out there that are open source with no redist rights for the source. In fact it was the defacto method of releasing things to retain control of the software back in the day, and I am sure that is why they are doing the same.Originally posted by ALRBP View Post
It makes things like the onecloud / nextcloud split imposible (which was also a sucky thing to happen from an end user perspective).Comment
-
By your define Microsoft Windows is open source since it possible to get the source code to it with no right to modify it or redistribute it.Originally posted by cb88 View Post
So yes Microsoft Windows is Source Available after you fill out the right forms and do the right documents.
No redistribution rights really does long term problems. Yes the onecloud/nextcloud split are example that splits can have downside for users. What about like the p7zip vs 7zip split as well. Remember p7zip ported 7zip to Linux and was only possible due to having the distribution rights.
So a fork can be sucky to end users but on other cases forks can be major-ally beneficial to end users because it allows a feature to be added the mainline was not going to.
Libreoffice today has history being the last in the long lines of fork off. Each major fork off gave advantages to the users along the way.
Open source common usage is normally with distribution rights because without distribution rights things can get really horrible really quickly. Lot of the flax EULA is really about providing selective distribution rights to cover employees and so on this can quickly come a legal Pandora box like what happens if for some reason your hardware is ceased and inspected by police? There are many different events that can trigger Distribution that you cannot control.
Note the thing about no public forks this sounds good until you have like what happened recently where you get broken in and releases the source code. Yes this has happened to game companies. You don't have to be the one to make a public fork and have a public fork happen. By the contract/license are you liable in this event?
Item like onecloud/nextcloud split is annoying but these don't risk having you stuck in court for the next 30 years. Not having distribution rights and some distribution you did not expect happens this could equal being stuck in court for 30 years or bankrupt whatever one comes first.Comment
-
Rarely a thread where birdie does not absolutely embarrass himself.Comment
-
Stop starting flamewars, thank you.Originally posted by b...irdieComment
-
The first valid, relevant and precise comment in this thread. Flax is definitely not "free software" but it is "open source".Originally posted by PublicNuisance View Post
It's great some rational people still lurk around here.Comment
-
Well, I've never called it Open Source either. The definition with two capitalized letters is a whole different beast altogether - I'll give you that. Looks like the case has been resolved, it's not Open Source, but it's open source. Hopefully radical open source fans here are finally happy: it's either GPL or bust. OK.Originally posted by ALRBP View Post
Comment
-
It depends on the define of "open source" wikipedia general define:Originally posted by birdie View Post
This is truly the common define. Flax has restrictions on modification and redistribution in the EULA so its not the general define.Open source is source code that is made freely available for possible modification and redistribution.
No lower case "open source" still has the common define that you should be able to perform modification and distribute those modifications. Other wises is like Microsoft Shared Source.Originally posted by birdie View PostWell, I've never called it Open Source either. The definition with two capitalized letters is a whole different beast altogether - I'll give you that. Looks like the case has been resolved, it's not Open Source, but it's open source. Hopefully radical open source fans here are finally happy: it's either GPL or bust. OK.
You are not in fact licensed to download Flax from github until after you have read and agreed to the EULA either other wise you are a software license infringer.
The EULA of the license.
Takes the bull crap of the week award.
Yep the document was updated feb this year yet the link would lead you to believe the document has not been updated since 2017 when it was updated this year. Nice that the prior agreements are not getting archived and are just been written straight over.Last updated: February 3, 2021
Section 10 of the EULA is really evil
10. Term and Termination
B.The problem here is "any restriction under the Flax Licenses" this wording is current and future licenses. So Flax releases a new Flax license that says must pay for everything you would now be in material breach with your existing EULA agreements for clauses you never got to read or agree to because you agreed to a blank check here. There are reasons why a lot of things like this has the words meaning "current and prior" in agreements like this.Termination by Flax. Flax may terminate the Agreement by providing written notice if you materially breach any provision of this Agreement and the breach is not curable or, if it is curable, you fail to cure the breach within thirty (30) days of notice of the breach from Flax.Without limiting the foregoing, your failure to make any payment due under this Agreement or breach of any restriction under the Flax Licenses constitutes a material breach of this Agreement.
Lot of ways the EULA of Flax is a has the makings to be a real Indian giver. birdie the deeper you dig into the EULA of flax the more Indian giver parts you find. Is it really open source when it may be a gift that the maker can take back at any time. This is not like a MIT/BSD/GPL class license.
I would call what Flax as "Proprietary source" because there are reserved rights greater than the general open open source define allows and Flax possible what I call Trap source because the EULA reserves enough that Flax can change the EULA under you then force you to obey the new license with terms you never agreed to. Remember Linux kernel being done GPLv2 only because Linus was not happy with or later clause due to what that could do. Something you learn to read EULAs on source code for is anything with "or later" meaning.
There is a reason why there are a collection of licenses under the "open source initiative approved license" because its really easy to have a license that looks like it enabled you to-do everything the common define of open source allows when in reality the license allows none of it over the long term. Please note that was ""open source initiative approved license"" lower case that is not a mistake the trademark is registered all lower case, all upper case and first letter capitalised. So fun right "open source" meaning could be covered by trademark law.Comment
-
I think the point is that "open source" (and "Open Source") is (and should be) taken to mean OSI-approved.Originally posted by birdie View Post
Well, I've never called it Open Source either. The definition with two capitalized letters is a whole different beast altogether - I'll give you that. Looks like the case has been resolved, it's not Open Source, but it's open source. Hopefully radical open source fans here are finally happy: it's either GPL or bust. OK.
I see it as three tiers:
Free/Libre Software as defined by the FSF (strong copyleft and ideologically "pure") where you have the right to do what you want with the source provided you give others the exact same freedoms.
Open Source Software as defined by OSI (in part a reaction to the strong copyleft and ideological "purity" of the FSF licences) where you still have the right to do what you want with the source, but in some instances aren't "hampered"* as much by strong copyleft in a business setting (Apache, BSD, MIT, ZLib etc.)
Shared Source / Source Available, where you have access to the source but are NOT allowed to fork it etc.
OSI has spent a lot of energy expanding the idea of OSS to encompass more than merely the Free Software concept, with the understanding that the whole point of OSS is that you can do what you want with the source, the most important thing being that you are explicitly allowed to fork+change+redistribute it for your own purposes.
As such, I think it's fairly disingenious to conflate the OSI-definition of OSS with the idea of Shared Source / Source Available Software, as that will over time erode the idea that open source implies freedom of use for the recipient.
*: It's pretty obvious why a traditional business entity which feels it needs to rely on trade secrets would feel hampered by the obligation to share its trade secrets freely.Last edited by ermo; 29 March 2021, 07:10 AM.Comment
Comment