Over the years, I think most people came to understand "open source" as something closer to "free software". However, that's clearly not the case for projects controlled by a single entity that require copyright assignments from contributors.
Copyright assignments are put in place for exactly this (allowing a single entity to relicense the whole codebase unilaterally based on their own interests), and we should maybe come up with a better term than "open source" for projects in this situation.
IF they have a license that meets the Open Source Definition, the fact that someone has the right (whether its a single owner is the only committer to the main project, or a person or entity who requires copyright assignment before merging outside submissions) has the right to subsequently issue versions with a different license does not change that.
So, no, I don’t see a CLA for an otherwise open source project transforming it into something other than open source.
And, if it did, we’d have to have a serious conversation about the “or any later version” clause of the GPL and how it makes all software using it not open source.
> And, if it did, we’d have to have a serious conversation about the “or any later version” clause of the GPL and how it makes all software using it not open source.
I was referring to people's understanding of what open source stands for, not what it actually means.
However, I can say that I personally dislike the fact that GNU projects require copyright assignments too, and that they were able to relicense all their projects from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv3 or later" unilaterally. I'm more willing to give the FSF that blank check than commercial entities, though.
Also, the "or any later version" means the recipient (user) chooses, not any single controlling entity.
"Business Source License" is not Open Source. You don't have to release your software as Open Source if you don't want to, I certainly write a lot of non-open-source software for a living. But people/companies want to take advantage of the good-will/reputation that comes from calling their software Open Source, and associating it with really Open Source software, without really making it Open Source. That's sleazy.
I don't care what a California-based "Open Source Initiative" group try to define as "Open Source Definition". That is all lobbying to me.
If I can see the source, then it's open source. The rest is just play on words which only purpose is to entertain sterile debates of zealot groups attempting vocabulary appropriation in a power struggle.
I don't want to fuel these groups' debates around "free software" vs "open source", Linux vs GNU/Linux or whatnot.
Are you unable to get out of the hole of vocabulary appropriation and lobbying created by some activist groups?
You are perpetrating the mind washing game of zealots that try to convince you they have the right to define what is and is not acceptable to their self defined standards.
You keep quoting articles and pages defining what _a specific group_ with a specific agenda has chosen to appropriate as "Open source".
All your sources and Wikipedia pages are ultimately linked to GNU publications. Read the references.
"an open source software license must also meet the GNU Free Software Definition"
That is plain ridiculous.
> it's also been a thing for 20+ years
No, it has never been "a thing". Especially not 20 years ago. Not even the sources you quote date back more than 5 years.
I don't know for you, but I was there 20+ years ago, developing and using open source softwares, and that distinction did not exist. If you had the source, it was open source, whatever the limitations of the license.
1999. That's when the first version of this document was published. The original 1999 press release is linked to Wikipedia. There were some conferences and debates that happened before that, and some settling of the OSI in the early 2000s. 20+ years ago.
> I don't know for you, but I was there 20+ years ago, developing and using open source softwares, and that distinction did not exist.
That's really pretty strange ... it was a pretty hot topic back then ... are you sure you used open source software? like linux, freebsd, apache httpd, gcc, bash, samba, mozilla...
The right to use software commercially even if the copyright holder doesn't like you is an important qualification of open source. GPL, LGPL, BSD, MIT, MPL, Apache etc all include this right. It's important. It did take people some time and debate to figure it out ... 20+ years ago.
The word "open" has pretty broad implications and only one of those implications is "visible". It's pretty reasonable to expect more from "open source" than just the source being visible.
Copyright assignments are put in place for exactly this (allowing a single entity to relicense the whole codebase unilaterally based on their own interests), and we should maybe come up with a better term than "open source" for projects in this situation.