From today the license applied to the project will be the Apache 2.0 license with an extra line forbidding usage of the codebase as an integration or app to Atlassian's Confluence or Jira products....
I have a totally different view, if I can use it in my own projects, that are released with an MIT or Apache 2 or similar license, then its open source.
Not that I want to, but I could contribute to draw.io, or fork it and privately make changes, then make money off either the original repo or my fork, and its legal.
I could sell one line of code change for a million dollars and then start writing daily taunting letters, daring them to sue me, and I would be fine.
I think anyone arguing that would eventually fall back to not so defined standards to make their point.
Ultimately, from my point of view, I am a developer who makes software that others will take advantage of to make their own profits.
I have not made any ground breaking projects yet, but I am working on one the past year, and hope to have it widely used. Maybe it will, maybe not
But, my viewpoint is that users are greedy, they want everything for nothing. I also need users to want to use my stuff. Its a delicate balancing act.
I think ultimately, the op source code did it wrong in the beginning, if they had layered their work more, some of it open source, some closed source, they would not have the backlash now.
Maybe one day my own stuff will have similar controversy, or not! Either way, if people call my own stuff not open source enough, and I am looking at my bank account, I do not care
I honestly do not care, there are too many open source organizations doing their own plays for money and influence, honestly, in large, they are the best for progress
But you couldn’t release your own projects based on this under pure MIT or Apache-2.0. Presumably you’d need to include the same restriction about selling on Atlassian’s marketplace.
No, it’s not. Those restrictions are against the open source definition.
Edit: Lol, people with no clue donvoting what they don’t want to hear. The open source definition is a fixed set of clauses. Read up on it.
I have a totally different view, if I can use it in my own projects, that are released with an MIT or Apache 2 or similar license, then its open source.
Not that I want to, but I could contribute to draw.io, or fork it and privately make changes, then make money off either the original repo or my fork, and its legal.
I could sell one line of code change for a million dollars and then start writing daily taunting letters, daring them to sue me, and I would be fine.
How is that not open source?
Because of the “no restrictions on use” thing.
I’m happy this arrangement works for you, but it’s clearly pushing beyond the boundaries of OSI-defined open source, let alone Free Software.
I think anyone arguing that would eventually fall back to not so defined standards to make their point.
Ultimately, from my point of view, I am a developer who makes software that others will take advantage of to make their own profits. I have not made any ground breaking projects yet, but I am working on one the past year, and hope to have it widely used. Maybe it will, maybe not
But, my viewpoint is that users are greedy, they want everything for nothing. I also need users to want to use my stuff. Its a delicate balancing act.
I think ultimately, the op source code did it wrong in the beginning, if they had layered their work more, some of it open source, some closed source, they would not have the backlash now.
Maybe one day my own stuff will have similar controversy, or not! Either way, if people call my own stuff not open source enough, and I am looking at my bank account, I do not care
TLDR: I’m too lazy or self absorbed to go look at the OSI website.
I honestly do not care, there are too many open source organizations doing their own plays for money and influence, honestly, in large, they are the best for progress
You sure run your mouth a lot for someone who “doesn’t care”.
Its because I get irritated by such views, and am bored. I had a lot of fun, but done now
“Such views” as the generally accepted definition of “open source” that’s been around since 1998?
Or the definition of “free software” that’s been around since 1990?
Or is it the fact that you are ignorant and arrogant, a potent combination, and resent being called out on your shit?
Well, there are many of us that do care about software freedom. If you don’t, I hope your software is as good as your understanding of open source.
It’s nice that you view it differently, but open source has a clear definition. And with this change it will not use a Open Source license anymore.
But you couldn’t release your own projects based on this under pure MIT or Apache-2.0. Presumably you’d need to include the same restriction about selling on Atlassian’s marketplace.
Google “open source definition” and read for yourself.
It is still open source. However, it is not free software anymore.
You replied to a comment referencing the open source definition and it’s clear you did never read it.
ITT people not knowing the difference between “Open Source” and “Source Available”