Thats the issue, some people think its defined, while some don’t. So see it simply as access to the source code so they can read it, some require it to be copy left. Both are valid in my opinion, but it is an important distinction that has to be made.
I think they mentioned it in the Livestream discussing Source First as well.
Sorry, but no one is considering sources available software as open-source. Even FUTO renamed their product to source-first (they previouslysaid it was open source) so they don’t claim themself as open source.
1 Like
Source First, with protections, is objectively better than Open Source because it doesn’t allow for exploitation of developers and commuities. Requiring outside monetezation of the code to be paid for just makes sense.
1 Like
I am not just talking about FUTO though, it is just an interesting example. The fact is that how much people like to claim that it is defined, it is not. There are several ways of interpreting it, and I would personally sad if we loss quality alternatives which are private and secure simple because they do not include an OSI license.
1 Like
Even if True, this is beside the point. Open source has it’s pro and cons, and we aren’t here to judge them. Developers can choose.
BTW it is totally fine to say we can accept source first, we just shouldn’t call it open source.
The wiki is pretty clear. Open source - Wikipedia
Open source is defined by OSI.
Free software is defined by FSF.
Source first software is defined by FUTO.
We should require software to either be open source or source first.
2 Likes
That is my feeling as well, I am confused at the claims otherwise.
Futo is far from the only example. Take Redis for example. It would have been better for their publicity to pretend they were still open-source under their new license structure, but they didn’t do that because no one sees source-available software as being open-source. Source.
In my opinion source-available isn’t anywhere close to being open source, but source first is.
Honestly, source-available software shouldn’t be accepted on PG.
The OSI is the steward of the OSD, which the most common, but ultimate just 1 of the most common Open source definitions.
What does Open-Source mean? (YOUR VOTE IS PUBLIC)
- Open-Source means the OSI definition
- Open-Source includes Source-Available software
- Open-Source includes Source-First software
- Alternative definition of Open-Source (Feel free to reply)
0
voters
I couldn’t edit the original poll so I remade it here, I understand it is impossible to add all the options people would like to see but hopefully this is good enough. 
Definitions:
Open-Source OSI
Source-First
Source-Available
3 Likes
I think there’s already a recognized definition so why use another one.
But I also think PG could recommend Open-Source and/or Source-First Software. There could be a little icon on each recommendation stating if said software is open-source or source-first with the definition included or a link to the definition included.
1 Like
An icon would be to complex, people should not have to watchout for such minor details on the site. Its icon and description heavy as is.
1 Like
Hot take coming in. I think there is not such an importance of something being open source at all in privacy space.
Dont get me wrong. Open source is a great good which I deeply support and many in privacy space do. I guess we are often the same kind of people caring for these things. Many offerings in the privacy world are also in some way open source which is the reason for these discussions and on my opinion confusion on the importance.
The discussion here is mostly held by people who have some strong opinions about open source definitions, but I would argue thet the actual impact for a user and reader of our website is pretty much negligible.
We should not be limiting ourselves to projects that are open source at all. In fact we already don’t in several of our recommendations. As I indicated before open source is a great thing, but this discussion is missing out how relevant this all actually is to what level of privacy you get. I see a lot of posts here but none seem to be experts on the legalities of the meaning, making the discussion about the definition to me a bit pointless and overrated.
Open source may be a good way of gaining trust when big user groups are there and many contributors are involved. With smaller projects it simply can’t provide guarantees about privacy and future of existence (I observed that these are the factors of importance here).
I would not recommend some flaky open source app from small project or business over a robust proprietary app that arguably adequately deals with our personal data. Thus it seems to me that the requirement for being open source should be lifted entirely.
We should strive for the best recommendations in privacy and those can be assessed by various other factors. I frankly don’t believe open source to be one. I am confident that many of them will to some extend of definitions be open source too. We however remain a privacy advocacy club, not one for open source, regardless of how much we sympathize with them.
5 Likes
I’m strongly opposed to attempting to redefine and weaken a well established and meaningful term, especially opposed to redefining it to accommodate a single software company’s in-house term for their source-available license.
If PG wants to recommend source available (or a subset of source available licenses) software in addition to open source that is fine, but it doesn’t require (or justify) attempting to redefine a useful and broadly agreed upon term. This would invite criticism, conflict, and harm PGs reputation as it harmed Futo’s when they attempted this redefinition. And it would very likely lead to some confusion among readers. (Source Available means something, Open Source means something, redefining Open Source to mean Source Available makes both terms less useful and less clear).
I would be deeply disappointed if that comes to pass.
Recommending source-available Futo software does not require muddying or weakening the meaning of open source. If that is your goal (and it seems to be) that seems like the wrong approach. It just requires that in addition to recommending Open Source software, there is some flexibility for non-oss but source available software (or closed source software, which PG currently recommends). Maybe that means a simple minimum criteria of source availability, or maybe that means defining some higher bar of source-availability that falls short of open-source, but is more clearly defined and more permissive/transparent than simple source-availability (or maybe just sticking with the status quo of preferring FOSS > Source Available > Closed Source, but not hard rule)
Essentially that is what Futo is trying to do with their in-house term ‘source first’, it’s a way for them to try to differentiate themselves as more than just mere source availability (while still falling short of open source). I don’t think it would be appropriate to use one company’s marketing term, but I do think that PG could adopt a specific source availability criteria somewhat similar (but hopefully less vaguely, and more objectively defined).
In any case, I’d like to see these criteria determined in the abstract and in a consistent way, not with specific products, services, or companies in mind.
7 Likes
This is tough as it seems, to me, that both this discussion and the discussion regarding password managers were solely revived to remove one product (1Password) and not in some good faith attempt at improving clarity or the password manager category. Luckily these discussions seemed to have morphed themselves into something better but, still leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
2 Likes
Well I personally started this thread is to grow PG’s consistancy. I want us to be well thought out and thought through. I personally do not have too much experience in dabbeling with licenses, expext for that I know that it tends to incite intense dicussion.
This is why I opened this thread, to ask everyone in this community what they know and fell about open source licenses.
There is no outcome for me that especially desired. Maybe we decide to follow the OSI model, maybe we decide to not include open source as a requirement at all, maybe we decide to not use the word open source but require source availability with one of a few licenses attached, who knows.
I just want to gather all the information in one place, get a feeling of what the team and community thinks, and go forward with the way that makes to most sense.
1 Like
I understand that but you revived it because of this thread
Which was revived by
who revived this thread as well
at the same time.
Hopefully I am wrong but to me it seems like all this happened because one team member decided they did not like 1Password.
If this was reversed and a user was attempting to change a criteria to add a tool instead of remove it, it would have (and has) been called out.
1 Like
I think just keep it simple and use the OSI definition really. No reason to overcomplicate things.
5 Likes