4 ms·

> Open source simply refers to the fact that the source code is publicly available. That's "source available". "Open Source" is widely understood to mean a bun

> Open source simply refers to the fact that the source code is publicly available. That's "source available". "Open Source" is widely understood to mean a bunch more, captured in the "Open Source Definition": https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd

kube-system 5y ago
"Open source" is not a legal trademark of OSI. The idea that "open source" means what OSI says it means is purely an opinion.
- rectang 5y ago
  Yeah, but if you try to bullshit a proprietary license as "open source" you're going to catch hell from a whole lot of people. It's not just the OSI that has a stake in the OSD. A few companies have tried it and backed off.
  - kube-system 5y ago
    Yes, you will get criticism, depending on the circumstances. If it's proprietary, sure, if it's public domain, probably not.
    - remram 5y ago
      If it's public domain then it is open source as per the OSI definition.
      - rectang 5y ago
        Replace "public domain" with "CC0" and it's a fair point. OSI hasn't approved CC0, and it's worth questioning how important OSI's whitelist is, or whether they should be the ones curating it. But everybody kinda knows that CC0 is more or less in the spirit of the OSD (so long as there are no patents involved) and OSI doesn't go around hollering about it, because it's not that important. As opposed to the Commons Clause, and other historical attempts to undermine "open source" as being nothing more than "source available" — those are battles worth fighting. The OSD is more important than OSI. If OSI were ever to change the OSD in a substantive way, there would be a huge revolt against them.
        account42 5y ago
        > Replace "public domain" with "CC0" and it's a fair point. OSI hasn't approved CC0 From https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero > CC0 was not explicitly rejected, but the License Review Committee was unable to reach consensus that it should be approved, and Creative Commons eventually withdrew the application. The most serious of the concerns raised had to do with the effects of clause 4(a), which reads: "No ... patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.". While many open source licenses simply do not mention patents, it is exceedingly rare for open source licenses to explicitly disclaim any conveyance of patent rights, and the Committee felt that approving such a license would set a dangerous precedent, and possibly even weaken patent infringement defenses available to users of software released under CC0. So it's more that there are concerns and nobody has cared enough to fully resolve them to arrive at a clear answer. It's also not like the CC licenses are commonly used for software so this is not surprising.
      - kube-system 5y ago
        That is not OSIs position. For example: https://opensource.org/node/878 https://opensource.org/node/878
        remram 5y ago
        The argument there is: > it’s impossible to make a globally applicable statement that a certain piece of software is in the public domain Not that something truly in the public domain is not open source.
teilo 5y ago
No court has as yet ruled that the OSI definition of "open source" is the legal definition of the term. The ruling here does not either. If it had limited its ruling to the term "open source," then this would indeed begin to codify what "open source" means from a legal standpoint. However, the courts ruled upon the composite term "open source and free". Under the OSI definition, open source implies free. But no court has yet so ruled.
- rectang 5y ago
  I said "widely understood", which is true irrespective of whether a court has ruled on it. There's a huge ecosystem which is underpinned by the OSD. There are also a handful of orgs (most prominently a few VC-funded companies) who want to freeload on the goodwill of "Open Source" to market their proprietary software. And there are some Free Software advocates who dislike the very term "Open Source". (Not that "Free Software" has court-endorsed clarity either.)
  - teilo 5y ago
    It may be "widely understood" but one could just as well argue that open source is "widely misunderstood." What matters is how the courts understand the term, and that, unfortunately, has not been resolved.

kube-system 5y ago

"Open source" is not a legal trademark of OSI. The idea that "open source" means what OSI says it means is purely an opinion.

rectang 5y ago
Yeah, but if you try to bullshit a proprietary license as "open source" you're going to catch hell from a whole lot of people. It's not just the OSI that has a stake in the OSD. A few companies have tried it and backed off.
- kube-system 5y ago
  Yes, you will get criticism, depending on the circumstances. If it's proprietary, sure, if it's public domain, probably not.
  - remram 5y ago
    If it's public domain then it is open source as per the OSI definition.
    - rectang 5y ago
      Replace "public domain" with "CC0" and it's a fair point. OSI hasn't approved CC0, and it's worth questioning how important OSI's whitelist is, or whether they should be the ones curating it. But everybody kinda knows that CC0 is more or less in the spirit of the OSD (so long as there are no patents involved) and OSI doesn't go around hollering about it, because it's not that important. As opposed to the Commons Clause, and other historical attempts to undermine "open source" as being nothing more than "source available" — those are battles worth fighting. The OSD is more important than OSI. If OSI were ever to change the OSD in a substantive way, there would be a huge revolt against them.
      - account42 5y ago
        > Replace "public domain" with "CC0" and it's a fair point. OSI hasn't approved CC0 From https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero https://opensource.org/faq#cc-zero > CC0 was not explicitly rejected, but the License Review Committee was unable to reach consensus that it should be approved, and Creative Commons eventually withdrew the application. The most serious of the concerns raised had to do with the effects of clause 4(a), which reads: "No ... patent rights held by Affirmer are waived, abandoned, surrendered, licensed or otherwise affected by this document.". While many open source licenses simply do not mention patents, it is exceedingly rare for open source licenses to explicitly disclaim any conveyance of patent rights, and the Committee felt that approving such a license would set a dangerous precedent, and possibly even weaken patent infringement defenses available to users of software released under CC0. So it's more that there are concerns and nobody has cared enough to fully resolve them to arrive at a clear answer. It's also not like the CC licenses are commonly used for software so this is not surprising.
    - kube-system 5y ago
      That is not OSIs position. For example: https://opensource.org/node/878 https://opensource.org/node/878
      - remram 5y ago
        The argument there is: > it’s impossible to make a globally applicable statement that a certain piece of software is in the public domain Not that something truly in the public domain is not open source.

teilo 5y ago

No court has as yet ruled that the OSI definition of "open source" is the legal definition of the term. The ruling here does not either. If it had limited its ruling to the term "open source," then this would indeed begin to codify what "open source" means from a legal standpoint. However, the courts ruled upon the composite term "open source and free". Under the OSI definition, open source implies free. But no court has yet so ruled.

rectang 5y ago
I said "widely understood", which is true irrespective of whether a court has ruled on it. There's a huge ecosystem which is underpinned by the OSD. There are also a handful of orgs (most prominently a few VC-funded companies) who want to freeload on the goodwill of "Open Source" to market their proprietary software. And there are some Free Software advocates who dislike the very term "Open Source". (Not that "Free Software" has court-endorsed clarity either.)
- teilo 5y ago
  It may be "widely understood" but one could just as well argue that open source is "widely misunderstood." What matters is how the courts understand the term, and that, unfortunately, has not been resolved.