3 ms·
I don't think we really need that. The current solution works relatively well: anyone using open source in a sense other than that described by the OSI, is reli
by MaxBarraclough 6y ago
I don't think we really need that. The current solution works relatively well: anyone using open source in a sense other than that described by the OSI, is reliably met with a hailstorm of criticism on HackerNews for being disingenuous. That's as it should be. It's a term of art in the software world, and we don't insist on legal enforcement of every term of art.
I tend to capitalise the term, Open Source, to emphasise that I'm using it an a precise way. I do the same with Free Software. Not ironclad, but I figure it probably helps.
With all of that said, I don't think anyone should be permitted to deliberately mislead people when they're pushing a product. It's obviously right that false advertising is forbidden by law.
- prepend 6y agoThat’s what I used to think, but now more companies use “open” with non-OSI licenses and they aren’t run out of town and told STFU. Personally, any project using “open” in the name that’s not OSI, I pretty much ignore. But it seems to be growing (eg, “open core”, “openai”, stuff like this taking about open with non-open licenses). It’s getting hard to filter out. One of the benefits I think to CCn is that it clearly lets users know what is and is not allowed. Having OSIn might help with people who don’t read licenses for fun.
- MaxBarraclough 6y agoOpenAI is a good example, see this comment from yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25820080 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25820080