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.
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?
People usually use the open source definition from the Open Source Initiative. That definition does have extra requirements:
Thanks for the clarification!
What you a referring to is often called “source available”
@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.
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.
@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.
That is usually referred to as “source available” and doesnt fall into the category of open source.
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)
@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.
Chatgpt please refactor this code entirely but keep the function input and output the same.
It’s still open source. It’s just that development has ceased.
It’s not open source and development has not stopped.
Whatever is still going on after the proprietary fork doesn’t count. It is irrelevant, just some other payware that will enshittify as it is resold. The last canon version is the unburden foss version. For practical purpose the development ended there and it’s fine. It’s great it made it that far before dying. At least tgat version won’t backslide in functionality or won’t leverage it’s adoption to extract rent.
Oh, it will backslide. This won’t run on lastest Chrome in 10 years time.
Is that web software not html5 compliant ?
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?
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.
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
Damn it… I literally just found draw.io like 2 weeks 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
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.
@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.
“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”.
