113
all 42 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Henry@lemmy.ca 19 points 1 day ago

Just wondering, if a project switch to close source from open source, all the donation to the stage when it’s open source will be sent back to the donor or counted as shares?

[-] peregus@lemmy.world 19 points 22 hours ago

They count as...gone! Gone to develop what's been open source until it becomes closed source. As I think it should be, because what you helped to develop with your donation is still there.

[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 31 points 1 day ago

TL;DR: Competitors in integrating with Atlassian are not allowed to incorporate code after the change because they used it in free add-ons, which caused the official integration (a paid add-on that is the sole source of funding) to be labeled a scam by a review in late August.

Plus, the thing was never really open source anyway:

draw.io is also closed to contributions, as it's not open source. We follow a development process compliant with our SOC 2 Type II process. We do not have a mechanism where we can accept contributions from non-staff members.

[-] peregus@lemmy.world 12 points 22 hours ago

Open source means that the source code is...open, that everyone can view and use it, it doesn't mean that everyone can contribute to it. Or am I wrong?

[-] stochastic_parrot@sh.itjust.works 15 points 21 hours ago

People usually use the open source definition from the Open Source Initiative. That definition does have extra requirements:

https://opensource.org/osd

[-] ReakDuck@lemmy.ml 1 points 20 hours ago

Then nvidia produced Open Source code then I guess?

(There were Repos, but everything was Copyrighted. Noone was technically allowed to use it afaik, but it was still there about some AI stuff back then)

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 2 points 20 hours ago

@ReakDuck I'm sure nvidia would like that, this "open source" label is good for marketing. They just want to avoid being actually open. Have the cake and eat it, like many businesses do.

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 0 points 21 hours ago

@peregus yes, wrong. Being "open" doesn't mean just "readable". Imagine an open bird cage, not just an open book. It needs to be open to fly free.

[-] peregus@lemmy.world -3 points 21 hours ago

The definition of the worlds open source seems to me that the source is readable by everyone. If you mean something different like @stochastic_parrot@sh.itjust.works said, then that's something else.

[-] Lemongrab@lemmy.one 4 points 14 hours ago

That is usually referred to as "source available" and doesnt fall into the category of open source.

[-] chebra@mstdn.io 4 points 21 hours ago

@peregus why do you think so? My view is backed by the two official definitions from OSI and FSF, plus the wording of specific licenses. Your definition is backed by... linguistics? While ignoring the second (open cage) meaning of "open"? Quite strange narrow definition, don't you think? And at odds with everyone who has been doing open-source for decades.

[-] Lysergid@lemmy.ml 2 points 21 hours ago

Whatever, I’m using it regardless of what shitty commercial alternatives tried to be shoved down my throat. If Draw.io goes shit I’ll just switch to ditaa

[-] C126@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 day ago

Is there an actual open source alternative to visio?

[-] FrameXX@discuss.tchncs.de 1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

When excalidraw was mentioned in another comment I think it would also be worth to mention tldraw even though I don't kniw whether it can be counted as an replacement since I never used draw.io.

https://github.com/tldraw/tldraw

[-] starshipwinepineapple@programming.dev 4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

I don't see a CLA so this is somewhat surprising that all ~30 contributors would be okay moving away from open source.

Unless this was a unilateral decision

[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 20 points 1 day ago

Apache is a permissive license, plus:

draw.io is also closed to contributions, as it's not open source. We follow a development process compliant with our SOC 2 Type II process. We do not have a mechanism where we can accept contributions from non-staff members.

This was added wayyyy before. OP is making this much more of a deal than it actually is.

[-] fabian@floss.social 3 points 1 day ago

@Aatube I don't see how OP is making it a big deal. That post is merely stating facts, as confirmed by the company representative in the GitHub discussion. Yes, the project was never "open-source-like governed", but it was technically open-source software. With the additional restriction in the license it's not anymore. All pretty theorical, but nevertheless true.

[-] Aatube@kbin.melroy.org 7 points 1 day ago

"No longer open source" is factually true. However, it gives the impression that they did something much more drastic. It would be much better to just get to the point with something like "draw.io forbids competitors for Atlassian integration from using their code".

Appreciate it, i wasn't familiar with the project and didn't see that!

this post was submitted on 19 Oct 2024
113 points (89.5% liked)

Open Source

30787 readers
932 users here now

All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!

Useful Links

Rules

Related Communities

Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS