this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
243 points (93.2% liked)

Technology

60052 readers
2977 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] actually@lemmy.world 59 points 2 months ago (2 children)
  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 54 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

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 12 points 2 months ago (4 children)

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 20 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 15 points 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 10 points 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 7 points 2 months ago

How is that not open source?

Google "open source definition" and read for yourself.

[–] einkorn@feddit.org 7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

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

[–] woelkchen@lemmy.world 2 points 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 1 points 1 month 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.