Jemmy
3 Comments
Comments from other communities
David From Space"This is why we can't have nice things."
The license change sucks but makes total sense.
I guess Dave Kinne there fucked around and found out, to the detriment of everyone.
Who is David Kinne and what did he do?
jarfilAs usual, the unresolved underlying issue is, how to get funding for FLOSS projects. Entitled cheapskates are nothing new; a generic solution to the issue, would be something new.
Kissakilol; Thanks Dave Kinne! /s
Note: This is from August. So it's been a while since then.
So they never got contribution from anyone else or is Apache not really copyleft?
@schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de why on earth would you use a title like that? It‘s just plain wrong. The project switched to a different license. It is still free and still open source.
tabularIt's free as in free food but adding an extra line to restrict how it can be used, or with who, makes it non-free software (free as in freedom).
SorteKaninSo as far as I gather, it's still just as open source as before but you just can't sell it on the Confluence marketplace? Seems fair.
I think they moved from GPL3 to Apache 2 in 2017 and then only added that one line about restricting confluence in August.
Crazy to see the thread of people using "open source" differently. The term "open source" may have successed in replacing the older term "free software" (in popularity) but apparently it can also fail to be clear. "Open" can mean various degrees of openess, or lack thereof in this case.
The AI bubble is currently grinding my gears on this. "XXX is an open source model". No, it's not. Do I have access to all of the information necessary to recreate it? No, I don't as nobody releases training data.
Training data is the source of these models. Without it, they are just free use.
KarnaGood for them.
The adherence to open source in the form of free labor for corporations is not about freedom or availability whatsoever.
AatubeTL;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:
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)
Noone was technically allowed to use it
There is your answer. draw.io can be used by everyone and for almost every purpose, so the situations aren't even remotely the same.
chebra@ReakDuck I'm sure nvidia would like that, this "open source" label is good for marketing. They just want to avoid being actually open. Have the cake and eat it, like many businesses do.
HenryJust 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?
They count as...gone! Gone to develop what's been open source until it becomes closed source.
As I think it should be, because what you helped to develop with your donation is still there.
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.
It's still open source. It's just that development has ceased.
It's not open source and development has not stopped.
Whatever is still going on after the proprietary fork doesn't count. It is irrelevant, just some other payware that will enshittify as it is resold. The last canon version is the unburden foss version. For practical purpose the development ended there and it's fine. It's great it made it that far before dying. At least tgat version won't backslide in functionality or won't leverage it's adoption to extract rent.
Is there an actual open source alternative to visio?
phaseWhen 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.
Whatever, I’m using it regardless of what shitty commercial alternatives tried to be shoved down my throat. If Draw.io goes shit I’ll just switch to ditaa
Thanks for the note on Ditaa. I didn't know it existed but I love the idea of rendering bitmaps from ASCII, especially on the web. It's like Mermaid but the original syntax is a diagram in and of itself!
Like the author writes:
There is a number of formats that are text-based (html, docbook, LaTeX, programming language comments), but when rendered by other software (browsers, interpreters, the javadoc tool etc), they can contain images as part of their content. If ditaa was intergrated with those tools (and I'm planning to do the javadoc bit myself soon), then you would have readable/editable diagrams within the text format itself, something that would make things much easier. ditaa syntax can currently be embedded to HTML.
Deleted by author
Deleted by author
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.
Short and not completely true answer: Free Software and Open Source are the same thing, just with different reasoning behind them. Hence "FOSS" and "FLOSS" are also used, which combine both terms.
@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. gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.
It's clear that it's not free software, because as the name suggests, that's about freedoms.
What is not really clear is that it's not open source. To me at least it means that the source is public, you can change it, use it, send in patches, etc, but possibly with some limitations.
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).
Never read something more wrong about the subject. I sounds like you don't actually know what Free Software refers to, and that it has nothing to do with the price.
Yeah the free beer thing is what I use to explain what the "free" doesn't mean. "Free as in freedom. Not free as in free beer."
VikAnd 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.
I suppose some instances cut others off as well (I see only 6 total) so you have a fair point
AndrewTo 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).
problem is I have no idea which of these communities is "best", I do not pay enough attention to things going on behind the scenes to have any knowledge of that.
problem is I have no idea which of these communities is "best"
Its a bit basic but so far I've just gone with the largest population. Usually I'm just after the most activity and that generally scales with population. It keeps things relatively simple.
this'll just mean whatever's in .world or .ml will eat up all the other communities. Biggest doesn't mean best.
We fund the project entirely from sales of the Confluence integration.
Just to extend the conversation, the change implements one thing, it protects our revenue in the atlassian ecosystem.
What it does it protect the future development of the project by protecting the revenue. That's more useful to you than the license being fully open source.
The primary losers of this change is anyone wanting to integrate draw.io into the Atlassian ecosystem.
I mean this does seem kind of fair. I'm not familiar with Confluence and Atlassian but it seems something mostly aimed at corporations, I'm not sure of how common it's use is and how much is affected by this though.
I'm okay with something being 98% open source so they can survive on the extra 2%. And I much rather specific non competes for certain platforms then broad non-commercial clauses.
supermarkusI mean this does seem kind of fair. I’m not familiar with Confluence and Atlassian but it seems something mostly aimed at corporations
He should just use AGPL then.
That’s substantially more restrictive than “Apache but you can’t sell it through this specific channel”, and it wouldn’t help this particular problem.
It’s not that the knock off extensions don’t want to share their code (they probably do).
woelkchenAtlassian could sell extensions, though, they would just need to comply with the AGPL. The AGPL means that the entire platform must comply with the AGPL, so proprietary platforms couldn't use it but in a fair "applies to everyone the same" and not "we don't like you individually" kind of way.
- None of the Work may be used in any form as part, or whole, of an
integration, plugin or app that integrates with Atlassian's
Confluence or Jira products.
its just the apache 2 license with a restriction to not sell this project on one marketplace. Can still sell the code elsewhere. Its still totally open source, and honestly Confluence is not something I would loose sleep on. Jira has been a cash cow for a long time, and I have a beef with them anyway
Its still totally open source
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.
AlexanderESmithITT people not knowing the difference between "Open Source" and "Source Available"
einkornIt 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.
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?
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.
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
TJA!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.
How is that not open source?
Google "open source definition" and read for yourself.
It's not open source, I've never called it open source, even before the license change. It's a public source code project.
Hmmm. I wonder who is making so much money off this that the project is willing to push them into forking it . . . ?
csm10495Honestly good on them for keeping the spirit alive for just about everyone who isn't a direct competitor of theirs.
Let them make some money to continue to fund it. They even invalidated all sponsorships because of the license change.
Unless you personally were willing to fund whatever they make on their integration, then this is an ok play in my book.
The linked post is damning as FUCK. It’s not about business. Someone’s review bruised his fragile little ego.
Get bent.
LungNah he was saying he was okay with free versions of his app undercutting him before, but calling his paid version a scam caused him to reconsider the policy - threatens revenue
TL;DR:
While it's disappointing to see the additional restriction, it's better to have a project the devs find sustainable than to have nothing at all. It seems like the goal of this change is to protect their main source of funding.
Worst case, people can fork the code before the change.
Totally fair enough if that’s their main source of income. On a related note jira plugins are such a scam. I want poker planning for my team of 10 buts its going to cost me $100 a month because the marketing team also use jira and there’s no way to pay only for one team!
we use https//scrumpoker-online.org, more than sufficient even though it doesn't link to Jira (but it's that necessary really?)