ClosedLess Philosophies

Below are the philosophies of the ClosedLess organisation. These are not written in stone, they are written in a text-editor and fundamentally formed from 1's and 0's. This means the philosophies of ClosedLess can adapt and expand in the future.

Free, as in Freedom to Choice

As we've briefly mentioned, we align ourselves similar to the FSF by advocating open-source software, but being indiscriminate against proprietary software when a user doesn't have any other choice. Let's take a couple examples in which this might be the case:

'NVidia graphics drivers for Linux' –
It goes without saying graphics drivers are an essential for dedicated GPUs, and if a user has a NVidia graphics card installed, they will require the appropriate drivers for their GPU. Those drivers are free to install on a "Linux" machine, but a user cannot see the code behind the drivers as it's closed-source. In this scenario, ClosedLess stands by a user's decision to install these drivers to their machine because there is simply no other option which provides an open-source solution, which provides near-to-perfect reliability and compatibility – not every person can write "driver-language code" for their machine. However, ClosedLess would not condone a user creating a driver for a particular GPU model and then releasing it as closed-sourced; instead, the developer should consider the best options for licensing as open-source software – it'd be far from perfect, and this encompasses the Principle of Betterment.
'Google Chrome, Discord & Steam' –
Installing these pieces of software can cause controversy within many communities. Arguably, all three SHOULD be installed on a Windows machine; however, if you are moving to Linux and wish to continue using these pieces of software whilst deciding on better alternatives, ClosedLess will not discriminate against this decision.
- Google Chrome. Whilst other browsers can be considered as better alternatives, fundamentally browsers all have their downfalls, and whichever the user feels most confident in using should be the browser they use – even if this is Google Chrome.
- Discord. Allowing users to join communities and to share common interests with other like-minded people – even Linux communities. If a user wishes to benefit from the interaction Discord provides, they shouldn't feel objected against using this platform on their Linux machine.
- Steam. Providing one of the largest libraries for gaming, and whilst a majority of games are targeted towards the Windows platform, a user might be intrigued at the availability of games for Linux and common limitation between distribution. Inevitably, games are created as closed-sourced, proprietary pieces of software; however, some of those games developers are individuals or small teams starting out in the games industry and this is one of their methods of generating income/revenue. ClosedLess acknowledges the importance of this, whilst protecting the IP of a product. Games developers should consider the possibility of making their projects open-source when at all possible, and having a secondary method of financial sources.

With the aforementioned examples whereby a user might not be given much choice but to use closed-source, proprietary software, it's important to remember that true "freedom" of the user is allowing them to install proprietary software, even if there are open-source alternatives. It is the freedom of developers whereby open-source should be practised and carried out with software. This is the ClosedLess philosophy.

Open vs Closed Minded

As previously stated, we do not release software which is closed-source, and most definitely not proprietary. That being said, it would be naive and ignorant to ignore the cases in which such software would benefit a developer; nonetheless, this type of software has no direct association with ClosedLess.

Let us take an example, a game is a piece of software. Majority of games are closed-source, and with most being proprietary too. This is understandable for smaller, indie game developers as the value of the product may be their main source of financial income. In addition, closed-source could also help protect the systems behind games, as it's not in everyone's best interest to report bugs to the official developers.
But this is an open-source software organisation, not a game studio.

No Licence isn't Permanent

All software under ClosedLess should be assigned with the appropriate licence which isn't "All Rights Reserved". This type of "licence" is apparent when no licence is given to a piece of software, and users should be cautious when using this type of software and making changes.

Just because software is open-source, it doesn't mean you have the right to modify, redistribute or update that software. Users should consult the licence file of the software/project, and this is why ClosedLess advocates software licensing. Provide clarification and don't leave users guessing what they can or cannot do with the software produced by a developer.

However, if a piece of software is available to the public to use, and it does not have a licence agreement, it doesn't mean the user cannot still use it to help a developer. "All Rights Reserved" should _only_ be used when a developer is still deciding on which type of licence will best suit their software, but should never be in a developers long-term interest to keep their software this way.

Copyright doesn't mean 'Restricted Development'

The term "copyright" can be misleading for some users, and copyright in the open-source world is essential for developers. Copyright does not mean that a user cannot make changes to parts which "along" to another developer, moreover it simply refers to the idea that another developer has created this idea which future developers should respect when modifying source code.

In the software world, copyright is used to protect the original authors, and contributors, for the code they specifically wrote in the software. Any modifications to the source code by another developer who has no direct association with the original creators, can copyright the modifications they have implemented whilst also retaining the original copyright.

Copyright Cannot's

A developer CANNOT claim copyright to the software as a whole which is already previously under copyright by a previous developer. This infringes on copyright laws, is plagiarism, an unethical practice, and will not be supported by the ClosedLess organisation. Instead, the original copyright should be retained within the preamble of any documents which have modifications. Software can then also be relicensed under another licence agreement which is compatible with the pre-existing licence.
Unlicensed software which is "open-source"^[1] CANNOT be modified and redistributed, nor placed under copyright by another developer. Instead, developers should try and seek contact with the original author to encourage licensing their software – if the software is hosted by a git provider, ensure a branch for licensing does not already exist.

Footnotes

^[1]Software that is not licensed appropriately cannot really be called open-source. For a better understanding of this, see: No License, defined by the gnu.org under "Various Licenses and Comments about Them".