Then you've misunderstood what "open source" means. The term "open source" was invented specifically to describe software with the following properties (among others) [1]:
~~~
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
[...]
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
~~~
Any software which doesn't meet those criteria isn't open-source.
there's a bunch of stuff on HN currently about not believing everything you're told and fake memories and such, but anyway I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition - that this definition, and the referenced site, have sort of taken over the definition and applied an extreme version of the term.
I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa. But it seems to me with the above definition that all things which are open source must then be free although all things that are free still do not need to be open source.
on edit: clarified I was referring to HN in first use of the term "site"
I’m confused. I believed the story of Open Source software begins in the 50s and 60s when early OS was essentially free, and the beasts software ran on was the profit center.
The culture for free open source software (and its benefits) was prevalent. But by the 70s companies we’re changing their attitude about this IP. I’m a reaction to increased restrictions Richard Stallman founded the GNU project in 1983.
Is there an Other World theory where this was not the case?
As far as I understand, the parent's doubt is about the _definition_ of "open source":
> I could swear that this has not always been the exact definition
> I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa.
In this perspective, the history, as reported, matches: originally, there was a "free software" concept and movement (the formal definition was given in 1986), then, in 1998, the "open source" term was coined.
> For example, “Open Watcom” is nonfree because its license does not allow making a modified version and using it privately.
The parent's doubt has verified grounds.
However, there's confusion, because it seems that the "Open Source Definition" is _now_ closer to "Free software" than it was when Stallman expressed his opinion: by that time, Open Watcom qualified as "Open source", but nowadays, based on the "Open Source Definition", it wouldn't.
Isn’t the parent not mistaken in their belief? Early softwares was free because no one cared or saw the value, until the technology evolved. Then companies saw the value, and locked it down (is it important to recognize those peeps we’re the mega-corps of the time like AT&T, not the scrappy peeps we call our peers today). Then academics couldn’t do their work, without violating growing property rights restrictions.
We’re not talking about the proverbial ‘historical house in private hands’—can we look around at this excellent example of early Frank Lloyd Wright house in Chicago. We’re talking about ownership and control for profit.
Mongo wants to wiggle out of the bind they find themselves in. Does anyone else feel this discussion is starting to feel like ‘workshopping’ the legal definitions entrepreneurs and coders can both agree on?
Maybe the parent is asking as a curiosity—Isn’t there also a second origin story about inspection without rights?
But, in the context of the original post’s topic of Mongo and the pickle they’re in, I reserve my normally generous nature, lest I find myself the cuckolded against my own interests.
There seems to be a curious spate of discussions lately about legal use, copyright, and trademark.
Google patenting some machine learning techniques [1] here on HN.
On a Philosophy Podcast I listen to there is an interview with on a legal scholar on his work defending plagiarism [2]
And for the record I am an ardent advocate of FOSS. I believe Mongo is in a pickle, and they should do the right thing to honor the spirit of OSS. And if they can’t, then they should surrender the property to someone who can.
The question is whether Open Source has always been synonymous with free, I do not believe it has I just believe it has historically been strongly correlated but I could be wrong. However using the OSI as evidence of the original meaning of the term doesn't strike me as at all authoritative, especially as the OSI has all sorts of conditions that I do not believe were in any original definition of the term.
as I am not a prescriptivist in language as a general rule it may be that I should alter my usage of the term to follow OSI usage, but then I feel that a useful term is needed for software where you can inspect the source as needed - perhaps inspectable source.
> I believe this because I also believe there used to be two terms open source, and free, that these were distinct, and that all things that were open source were not necessarily free or vice versa.
There are certainly ideological differences between the two; but I think it's primarily in terms of focus. The FSF primarily aims at promoting "software freedom" as an end in itself; RMS claims that it is unethical to give people software but prevent them from sharing or modifying it. As such, they much prefer to use copyright law to promote "software freedom", by things like the GPL and AGPL. But (as I understand it), since more permissive licenses like BSD or MIT licenses do allow the "four freedoms", they consider them "free software" (albeit second-class, because unlike copyleft licenses, they don't fight to keep derivatives "free").
"Open source" was meant to focus more on the benefits of the open, collaborative software development model, without denigrating proprietary software; and, in particular, to be more palatable to large companies. As such, permissive licenses (BSD, MIT, Apache, &c) are considered just as valid as copyleft licenses (GPL, APL, &c).
But saying, "You're not allowed to run a service using our software because it might compete with us" is Right Out.
Then you've misunderstood what "open source" means. The term "open source" was invented specifically to describe software with the following properties (among others) [1]:
~~~
1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
[...]
3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
~~~
Any software which doesn't meet those criteria isn't open-source.
[1] https://opensource.org/osd
(edit: formatting)