And despite that, if was still newsworthy enough to be posted like 6 times in total 😅
I posted it to 8 communities because there are 8 communities I am aware of where this on-topic. Some people might be subscribed to only a subset of them. This is the natural consequence of the fediverse enabling us to have more than one community for discussing the same topic.
To my mind, the ideal would be that if you, as the person who wants to share some ‘open-source’ news, chose one community that you think is ‘best’ (based on what instance it’s on, if the mods are real people and are active, participation levels, whatever you think really). And we, as subscribers, would do the same. This way, the ‘good’ communities would thrive, and the ‘bad’ ones would wither away. What happens at the minute, is that there’s 8 communities for open source, and there’ll always will be, because they aren’t in competition with one another.
(this is mostly just a general point about cross-posting behaviour, it’s not meant as a dig at you personally).
I really don’t understand the difference between free software and open source at tis point. It would make sense to me if this would make it nonfree, but I don’t understand why is it not open source anymore. Isn’t the open source definition a broader one than that of free software?
Open Source Software follows the Open Source Definition, while Free Software follows the Free Software Definition.
They have heavy overlap, one is not a subset of the other, and they are similarly restrictive, just shepherded by different groups. I’m sure there are licences that satisfy one but not the other, but they would have to be few and far between; just reading through each it’s not obvious how one could satisfy only one definition.
If I give you a free beer, you have one beer. If I give you the recipe, you can make your own beer. You do have to make your own open source beer or you can hire someone to do it for you or perhaps take you through the steps a few times until you’ve got it. With luck there will be a community of open source beer brewers with whom you can interact and improve those recipes.
Free software is free until it isn’t! The illicit drugs industry works in a similar way (the first hit is for free).
@ReversalHatchery @velox_vulnus
It violates “freedom 0” of the Free Software Definition too, so no difference there. This limitation on use makes is non-open-source AND non-free-software. https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#fs-definition
I don’t see a CLA so this is somewhat surprising that all ~30 contributors would be okay moving away from open source.
Unless this was a unilateral decision
Apache is a permissive license, plus:
draw.io is also closed to contributions, as it’s not open source. We follow a development process compliant with our SOC 2 Type II process. We do not have a mechanism where we can accept contributions from non-staff members.
This was added wayyyy before. OP is making this much more of a deal than it actually is.
@Aatube I don’t see how OP is making it a big deal. That post is merely stating facts, as confirmed by the company representative in the GitHub discussion. Yes, the project was never “open-source-like governed”, but it was technically open-source software. With the additional restriction in the license it’s not anymore. All pretty theorical, but nevertheless true.
Up until a year ago, the README explicitly said they didn’t claim to be an open source project: https://github.com/jgraph/drawio/commit/8906f90ac0cc50a0c6da77c28cf9b2b2339277b1#diff-b335630551682c19a781afebcf4d07bf978fb1f8ac04c6bf87428ed5106870f5L10
TL;DR: Competitors in integrating with Atlassian are not allowed to incorporate code after the change because they used it in free add-ons, which caused the official integration (a paid add-on that is the sole source of funding) to be labeled a scam by a review in late August.
Plus, the thing was never really open source anyway:
draw.io is also closed to contributions, as it’s not open source. We follow a development process compliant with our SOC 2 Type II process. We do not have a mechanism where we can accept contributions from non-staff members.
Open source means that the source code is…open, that everyone can view and use it, it doesn’t mean that everyone can contribute to it. Or am I wrong?
People usually use the open source definition from the Open Source Initiative. That definition does have extra requirements:
@peregus yes, wrong. Being “open” doesn’t mean just “readable”. Imagine an open bird cage, not just an open book. It needs to be open to fly free.
The definition of the worlds open source seems to me that the source is readable by everyone. If you mean something different like @stochastic_parrot@sh.itjust.works said, then that’s something else.
Then nvidia produced Open Source code then I guess?
(There were Repos, but everything was Copyrighted. Noone was technically allowed to use it afaik, but it was still there about some AI stuff back then)
Just wondering, if a project switch to close source from open source, all the donation to the stage when it’s open source will be sent back to the donor or counted as shares?
Is there an actual open source alternative to visio?
When excalidraw was mentioned in another comment I think it would also be worth to mention tldraw even though I don’t kniw whether it can be counted as an replacement since I never used draw.io.
