Tom Marble

All the angst over the definition of "open source" is mirrored in the fight we will soon have over "proprietary". There's a meaningful difference between traditional proprietary models and "don't compete w me" licenses even if we sometimes lump them together.https://twitter.com/VanL/status/1174759891711483904 …

And there is a difference between traditional proprietary licenses and Do No Harm (DNH) licenses. There's a spectrum between "proprietary" and "open source" that includes thing like "source available."

But something that's unclear is that "source available" isn't a "middle-ground" of level-of-okayness, it's in general more dangerous than traditional proprietary software; the ability to "see code" that there aren't real rights for community contribution is a dangerous trap IMO

I agree that it's not a middle ground. DNH and source available are on a spectrum of "freeness" between proprietary and free/open, in as much as they give you more freedoms, even if you're not getting -all- the freedoms.

I am actually arguing to the contrary: I consider them less free than no-source-available!

I am actively afraid of being exposed to "source available" code, because that's information and ideas that I have now seen but cannot use in my work on free software

I was thinking about this. On the other hand, as an end user, I like the idea that by seeing code I can better understand and consent to what I am choosing to use.