13 ms·

>Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms OSI was specifically created to subvert freedoms that the F

>Getting angry with them for protecting open source from bad actors who try to subvert its freedoms OSI was specifically created to subvert freedoms that the Free Software Foundation protects, so this statement is quite ironic.

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
This isn't really true. The FSF and OSI have subtly different goals but the definition of open source and free software are nearly identical. The OSI exists to be a non-political entity so that people who want to work on open source have resources to do so without necessarily participating in the politics of the FSF.
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > The OSI exists to be a non-political entity so that people who want to work on open source have resources to do so without necessarily participating in the politics of the FSF. In what way is the FSF any more political than the OSI, beyond trying to protect the defined freedoms of free software? By inserting itself as the only legitimate body to define what "open-source" is, it is by definition engaging in politics, no less than the FSF. > The OSI is a respected organization that defends basic and non-controversial rights in open source It is rather assuming that the OSI is "respected" or that it defends "non-controversial rights in open source". The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
    >In what way is the FSF any more political than the OSI, beyond trying to protect the defined freedoms of free software? The OSI only concerns itself with defining open source and publishing a list of open source licenses. The FSF unquestionably concerns itself with much more. >The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me. No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't want to write open source software, then don't. That's your choice. But the right to do exactly this is protected by both the OSI and the FSF, and I doubt you can find another authority which disagrees.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      > The OSI only concerns itself with defining open source and publishing a list of open source licenses. The FSF unquestionably concerns itself with much more. The FSF concerns itself with defining/defending free software, same as OSI does for open-source. If FSF "concerns itself with much more", I assume you would not have a problem listing some of these things. > No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't want to write open source software, then don't. That's your choice. But the right to do exactly this is protected by both the OSI and the FSF, and I doubt you can find another authority which disagrees. The difference here is that the OSI was historically created as a response to FSF for this exact purpose, whereas the FSF was primarily created to defend copyleft, later adopting some non-copyleft licenses as well, so the exact reverse of what OSI did.
      - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
        Ask the FSF yourself. Richard Stallman can be reached via rms@gnu.org and usually responds to emails within a day. The FSF defends the right for others to sell your software, and has wide-reaching political ambitions. Don't just take my word for it, ask them.
        AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > Ask the FSF yourself YOU have asserted that the FSF has "wide-reaching political ambitions", therefore it is upon you to provide evidence for this. > has wide-reaching political ambitions I am asking what "political" ambitions does it have, beyond protecting free software. > Don't just take my word for it The thing is, you didn't provide any evidence of the "political ambitions" you speak of and so you're quite right, I don't take you word for it, unless you list at least some of these ambitions.
        Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
        Fine, if you must have it spoon fed to you: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/ https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/
  - BFatts 8y ago
    >> The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me. Nope. You are so very wrong here. The OSI defines open source so that licenses comply with the terms... that's all. They don't have any other agenda, period. Stating so shows a complete lack of understanding OSS and the OSI.
    - AsyncAwait 8y ago
      Stating so shows a complete lack of understanding of why and by whom OSS/the OSI was started and popularized. It ignores by who the OSI was co-founded and promoted by, (ESR, O'Reilly etc.) and why, (as a response to FSF to make free software more appealing to corporations for the exact purpose I outlined in my original post).
BFatts 8y ago
No, again someone who doesn't really know the history. Open Source was a way to make free software acceptable to businesses, not subvert the FSF. The FSF's goal is to have ZERO PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE at all and that software patents are stupid and should be illegal. So, without such knowledge your statement might make sense. But even stating that OSS subverts FSF is laughable!
- AsyncAwait 8y ago
  > Open Source was a way to make free software acceptable to businesses, not subvert the FSF. Read my comment again please. I didn't say subvert the FSF, but some of the things the FSF stands for. This, as you correctly point out, in order to make it more appealing to businesses, which I didn't dispute.
- dang 8y ago
  You repeatedly became uncivil in your posts to this thread. We ban accounts that do that. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here. (That includes not using uppercase for emphasis. That's basically online yelling.)
bunderbunder 8y ago
> OSI was specifically created to subvert freedoms that the Free Software Foundation protects This is one of those spots where knowledgeable people can disagree, because they're working with a different set of values. To someone who prefers the Free Software model, OSI was created to subvert freedoms that the FSF wants to preserve. To someone who prefers the Open Source model, OSI preserves freedoms that the FSF is trying to restrict. To the other 99% of humanity, this particular debate probably sounds a whole lot like the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea. (Edit: s/intelligent/knowledgeable/ -- better choice of words.)

Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago

This isn't really true. The FSF and OSI have subtly different goals but the definition of open source and free software are nearly identical. The OSI exists to be a non-political entity so that people who want to work on open source have resources to do so without necessarily participating in the politics of the FSF.

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> The OSI exists to be a non-political entity so that people who want to work on open source have resources to do so without necessarily participating in the politics of the FSF. In what way is the FSF any more political than the OSI, beyond trying to protect the defined freedoms of free software? By inserting itself as the only legitimate body to define what "open-source" is, it is by definition engaging in politics, no less than the FSF. > The OSI is a respected organization that defends basic and non-controversial rights in open source It is rather assuming that the OSI is "respected" or that it defends "non-controversial rights in open source". The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me.
- Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
  >In what way is the FSF any more political than the OSI, beyond trying to protect the defined freedoms of free software? The OSI only concerns itself with defining open source and publishing a list of open source licenses. The FSF unquestionably concerns itself with much more. >The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me. No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't want to write open source software, then don't. That's your choice. But the right to do exactly this is protected by both the OSI and the FSF, and I doubt you can find another authority which disagrees.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    > The OSI only concerns itself with defining open source and publishing a list of open source licenses. The FSF unquestionably concerns itself with much more. The FSF concerns itself with defining/defending free software, same as OSI does for open-source. If FSF "concerns itself with much more", I assume you would not have a problem listing some of these things. > No, this is what open source stands for. If you don't want to write open source software, then don't. That's your choice. But the right to do exactly this is protected by both the OSI and the FSF, and I doubt you can find another authority which disagrees. The difference here is that the OSI was historically created as a response to FSF for this exact purpose, whereas the FSF was primarily created to defend copyleft, later adopting some non-copyleft licenses as well, so the exact reverse of what OSI did.
    - Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
      Ask the FSF yourself. Richard Stallman can be reached via rms@gnu.org and usually responds to emails within a day. The FSF defends the right for others to sell your software, and has wide-reaching political ambitions. Don't just take my word for it, ask them.
      - AsyncAwait 8y ago
        > Ask the FSF yourself YOU have asserted that the FSF has "wide-reaching political ambitions", therefore it is upon you to provide evidence for this. > has wide-reaching political ambitions I am asking what "political" ambitions does it have, beyond protecting free software. > Don't just take my word for it The thing is, you didn't provide any evidence of the "political ambitions" you speak of and so you're quite right, I don't take you word for it, unless you list at least some of these ambitions.
        Sir_Cmpwn 8y ago
        Fine, if you must have it spoon fed to you: https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/ https://www.fsf.org/campaigns/
- BFatts 8y ago
  >> The right to take my code, profit from it and not share back is essentially what the OSI stands for and is thus not respected by me. Nope. You are so very wrong here. The OSI defines open source so that licenses comply with the terms... that's all. They don't have any other agenda, period. Stating so shows a complete lack of understanding OSS and the OSI.
  - AsyncAwait 8y ago
    Stating so shows a complete lack of understanding of why and by whom OSS/the OSI was started and popularized. It ignores by who the OSI was co-founded and promoted by, (ESR, O'Reilly etc.) and why, (as a response to FSF to make free software more appealing to corporations for the exact purpose I outlined in my original post).

BFatts 8y ago

No, again someone who doesn't really know the history. Open Source was a way to make free software acceptable to businesses, not subvert the FSF. The FSF's goal is to have ZERO PROPRIETARY SOFTWARE at all and that software patents are stupid and should be illegal. So, without such knowledge your statement might make sense. But even stating that OSS subverts FSF is laughable!

AsyncAwait 8y ago
> Open Source was a way to make free software acceptable to businesses, not subvert the FSF. Read my comment again please. I didn't say subvert the FSF, but some of the things the FSF stands for. This, as you correctly point out, in order to make it more appealing to businesses, which I didn't dispute.
dang 8y ago
You repeatedly became uncivil in your posts to this thread. We ban accounts that do that. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow the rules when posting here. (That includes not using uppercase for emphasis. That's basically online yelling.)

bunderbunder 8y ago

> OSI was specifically created to subvert freedoms that the Free Software Foundation protects This is one of those spots where knowledgeable people can disagree, because they're working with a different set of values. To someone who prefers the Free Software model, OSI was created to subvert freedoms that the FSF wants to preserve. To someone who prefers the Open Source model, OSI preserves freedoms that the FSF is trying to restrict. To the other 99% of humanity, this particular debate probably sounds a whole lot like the Judean People's Front vs. the People's Front of Judea. (Edit: s/intelligent/knowledgeable/ -- better choice of words.)