3 ms·
There is no consensus. There are myriad distinct points of view and competing interests. Several schools hold themselves out as the one true reading of the Open
by kemitchell 6y ago
There is no consensus. There are myriad distinct points of view and competing interests. Several schools hold themselves out as the one true reading of the Open Source Definition. Others don't care about OSD at all.
Is CC0 (not OSOI approved) software open source? How about AGPLv3 (approved)? Ethically licensed software (in process)? BSD/MIT (approved) code from standards bodies under separate patent? Adaptive Public License (approved) software that explicitly opts out of patent coverage? NASA's latest license (not approved)? RPL 1.5 (approved by OSI, not by FSF)? Apache 2 (approved) API wrappers that only talk to closed cloud services? WTFPL (not approved)?
I've released noncommercial licenses, avoided calling them "open", had others do so quite despite me, then hear, basically "I know, and I don't care" when I pointed it out. On the other hand, I know people who don't think copyleft counts as open source, or shouldn't any more.
There is a kind of lowest common denominator of sorts around MIT, BSD, Apache 2.0, maybe Artistic 2, assuming no patents. Some would add GPLv2, LGVPLv2.1, and maybe MPLv2 and EPLv2, for copyleft. All of those licenses have well known legal and practical limitations. Some are truly ancient, like MIT and BSD, and wouldn't be considered competently drafted now.
- verdverm 6y agoGenuinely sorry if I offended you. Definitions are evolving, people will abuse language for personal gain, and the world goes on. I am personally hopeful that open source will gain a wider and more pure definition beyond software and licensing. Like GitLab, transparency, and their handbook, or the maker movement and DIY / distributed / local production. My license choice (of BSD-3) was based on the projects I work most closely with. (Golang / Cuelang)
- verdverm 6y agoConsensus is really needed, generally speaking, so that the phrase "open source" does not lose meaning and so that the ecosystem avoids fracturing from a gaggle of certifying bodies
- verdverm 6y agoI expect the "ethically licensed" attempt will fail the open source bar. Anything that selects out a group as having different requirements ought to. Free as in speech, without bias or contempt of others, will win in the end (I hope). This is why FSF "free" software (strong copyleft) is different from "open source" and they have different governing bodies. We are already seeing a pull back from copyleft and the overreaction the other direction (to non-compete) will both lose out to best in class humanity found in truly "open" source ideas.