• actually@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    13
    ·
    2 months ago
    1. 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

    • woelkchen@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      68
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      edit-2
      2 months ago

      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.

      • actually@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        23
        arrow-down
        11
        ·
        2 months ago

        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?

        • vzq@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          22
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

          • actually@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            15
            ·
            2 months ago

            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

            • vzq@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              14
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              2 months ago

              TLDR: I’m too lazy or self absorbed to go look at the OSI website.

              • actually@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                15
                ·
                2 months ago

                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

                • vzq@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  16
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  You sure run your mouth a lot for someone who “doesn’t care”.

                  • actually@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    16
                    ·
                    2 months ago

                    Its because I get irritated by such views, and am bored. I had a lot of fun, but done now

                • theherk@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  6
                  ·
                  2 months ago

                  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.

        • TJA!@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          18
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

        • cadekat@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          2 months ago

          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.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          8
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          2 months ago

          How is that not open source?

          Google “open source definition” and read for yourself.

      • einkorn@feddit.org
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        2 months ago

        It is still open source. However, it is not free software anymore.

        • woelkchen@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 months ago

          You replied to a comment referencing the open source definition and it’s clear you did never read it.

    • davidjgraph@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      It’s not open source, I’ve never called it open source, even before the license change. It’s a public source code project.