5 ms·

Just going off this table [1] there is pretty wide disagreement of what constitutes open source between different groups, so to claim without qualification that

by bragr 5y ago

Just going off this table [1] there is pretty wide disagreement of what constitutes open source between different groups, so to claim without qualification that you alone get to define and arbitrate that seems pretty crazy to me. Like either you are stuck in an echo chamber or you've lost sight of the difference between yourself and the community e.g. if you aren't with us you are against open source. Either way, it does not make me want to use the OSI my north star. Not sure who elected them kings of open source. One could argue that the list of licenses on Wikipedia is more reflective community consensus since, in theory at least, it is the product of a lot of debate and consensus from many contributors.[2] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences#Approvals https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-so... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licences https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_free_and_op...

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
remram 5y ago
I guess that is fair, or arguably fair. What would be a better name for it? "Free software" is similarly loaded ("free software is like free beer, software you don't pay for", "open source is like open house, you can get in the source"). Maybe "libre software"? "Permissive software"? The full "FOSS" or "FLOSS" acronyms? Should we stick to specific license names e.g. "GPL software" or "MIT software"? That's probably the safest as those usually include an actually recognized trademark.
- chrisseaton 5y ago
  If you care what the OSI thinks, then say 'OSI Approved Licensed Code' - you can already use that, and it's already protected by their registered trademark.
  - remram 5y ago
    What if I don't particularly care?
    - chrisseaton 5y ago
      Well then just say whatever you want that's not restricted in any way. 'Open source' if you want to. Why did you ask if you don't care?
      - remram 5y ago
        I don't care what the OSI thinks, I do care what we call it. I asked what we call it.
- fabianhjr 5y ago
  > “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis. Taken from: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html FSF and others have long argued the opposite of your comment: free is for freedom not gratis.
  - remram 5y ago
    Yes they do, just like the OSI is clear on what open source is. But those terms don't explicitly mean that, which is why there is disagreement, especially if the groups supporting them fall into disrepute. I am asking what better name we can find for this, one that is self-evident rather than one that is only made unambiguous by the active work of either OSI or FSF.
    - EarlKing 5y ago
      No, we really can't, because this is a political issue rather than an issue of logic. The term "freeware" had an unambiguous definition before the FSF came along and decided to co-opt the term for its personal crusade, just like "open source" had an unambiguous definition[1] before the OSI came along to co-opt it in an effort to sell "free software" to businesses. You could adopt a new term tomorrow and people would still come along and try to co-opt it. How do I know? Because when people tried to co-opt Freeware, the term Shareware was adopted, and people came along to try to co-opt that. Likewise, when Freeware was co-opted as "Free Software", the OSI came along to bastardize it and repackage it as "open source" (co-opting and existing term). You cannot coin your way out of being co-opted by bad actors. [1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html
      - remram 5y ago
        I don't know if naming is a political issue, it is a social one. If I call my software "MIT licensed", there is no ambiguity, and no politics in the meaning (though the act of picking a license can be political I guess).
- pabs3 5y ago
  Other possibilities: "freedomware" or "software freedom" or "user respecting software".
  - remram 5y ago
    Oh, I like freedomware. Though it is not immediately obvious what kinds of freedom; I can imagine Commons Clause software being called freedomware as well.
    - naniwaduni 5y ago
      Yes, it turns out to invite confusion when you try defining "freedom" by the circumscription of an accident of Cold War era history and object to other people reading the word as if it were English.
    - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
      It's very Orwellian sounding.
  - r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
    Stallmanite software
  - riedel 5y ago
    Actually FOSS (just as OSS) _only_ respects the freedom of the licencee. Any ethical restrictions that are not part of the legal environment (like export control) make open source "unfree" as uncompromised openness is a precondition. IMHO opinion freedom stops there where it restricts the freedom of someone else. I think FSF is in parts neoliberal and should engage more in an ethical discussion. Just claiming to be free of ideology is ideology itself... (Edit: made clear that it is not only a FOSS but also OSI "problem")
    - pabs3 5y ago
      Definitely that is the case. I think this essay probably applies to the FSF's position on the Ethical Source movement even though it wasn't written by them: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-source-putin-ukraine/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-...
thayne 5y ago
But notice that the commons clause and server side public license don't even show up on that list. There might some disagreement around where to draw the line but there is some general consensus that there is a difference between "open source" and "source available". And yet I've seen a few companies that market their product as "open source" just because their source code is on GitHub, even though the license is just as restrictive as any proprietary license.
lliamander 5y ago
The Commons Clause website agrees with the OSI that any license with the clause is not open source: https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/
EarlKing 5y ago
The OSI's position is particularly annoying since it's been proven over and over again that they didn't originate the term[1], they co-opted it from a pre-existing term and concept in the community to try to sell "free software" to businesses. They don't get to define it - then, now, or ever. [1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html
cxr 5y ago
There's some sleight of hand in this comment on multiple levels. > going off this table [1] there is pretty wide disagreement of what constitutes open source between different groups Since that's not what the table represents, that's not a reasonable conclusion supported by the data in the table alone. (Coincidentally, this is the same principle undergirding Kyle's issue with OSI's post drawing unsound inferences from the Neo4J Sweden decision.) To start with, something can be GPL-incompatible without any implication about whether it's open source or not. In the second instance, something can be approved for use in the Debian project or not, but—again—that's a separate question from "Is there any legitimacy to the position that satisfying the criteria described in the Open Source Definition is a necessary precondition to being able to call something 'open source'?" NB: maintaining mental clarity about the separation between the legitimacy of that definition and the OSI's authority to "rule" on any given "record" (i.e. the legitimacy of the OSI's power, esp. in future findings) is important. Recognizing a definition as normative is a wholly separate matter from determining who gets to adjudicate whether something meets that standard. > to claim without qualification that you alone get to define and arbitrate that seems pretty crazy to me See, that's different even still! Agreeing that a given definition is legitimate is not the same as anointing any given group and its future findings as authoritative. To use an example: we can agree that "fair use" is described in Title 17 and subsequent case law. In a fair use dispute, this would not be the point of contention—both parties would acknowledge this. Which party would prevail in their action, however, would depend on a finding of fact by the courts: how the definition applies to the parties' circumstances—not whether the definition is legitimate.
- bragr 5y ago
  >Agreeing that a given definition is legitimate is not the same as anointing any given group and its future findings as authoritative. Clearly you didn't read the OSI blog post that this blog post is referencing >The court only confirmed what we already know – that “open source” is a term of art for software that has been licensed under a specific type of license, and whether a license is an OSI-approved license is a critically important factor in user adoption of the software. https://opensource.org/blog/court-affirms-its-false-advertising-to-claim-software-is-open-source-when-its-not https://opensource.org/blog/court-affirms-its-false-advertis...

by bragr 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

remram 5y ago

I guess that is fair, or arguably fair. What would be a better name for it? "Free software" is similarly loaded ("free software is like free beer, software you don't pay for", "open source is like open house, you can get in the source"). Maybe "libre software"? "Permissive software"? The full "FOSS" or "FLOSS" acronyms? Should we stick to specific license names e.g. "GPL software" or "MIT software"? That's probably the safest as those usually include an actually recognized trademark.

chrisseaton 5y ago
If you care what the OSI thinks, then say 'OSI Approved Licensed Code' - you can already use that, and it's already protected by their registered trademark.
- remram 5y ago
  What if I don't particularly care?
  - chrisseaton 5y ago
    Well then just say whatever you want that's not restricted in any way. 'Open source' if you want to. Why did you ask if you don't care?
    - remram 5y ago
      I don't care what the OSI thinks, I do care what we call it. I asked what we call it.
fabianhjr 5y ago
> “Free software” means software that respects users' freedom and community. Roughly, it means that the users have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. Thus, “free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.” We sometimes call it “libre software,” borrowing the French or Spanish word for “free” as in freedom, to show we do not mean the software is gratis. Taken from: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html FSF and others have long argued the opposite of your comment: free is for freedom not gratis.
- remram 5y ago
  Yes they do, just like the OSI is clear on what open source is. But those terms don't explicitly mean that, which is why there is disagreement, especially if the groups supporting them fall into disrepute. I am asking what better name we can find for this, one that is self-evident rather than one that is only made unambiguous by the active work of either OSI or FSF.
  - EarlKing 5y ago
    No, we really can't, because this is a political issue rather than an issue of logic. The term "freeware" had an unambiguous definition before the FSF came along and decided to co-opt the term for its personal crusade, just like "open source" had an unambiguous definition[1] before the OSI came along to co-opt it in an effort to sell "free software" to businesses. You could adopt a new term tomorrow and people would still come along and try to co-opt it. How do I know? Because when people tried to co-opt Freeware, the term Shareware was adopted, and people came along to try to co-opt that. Likewise, when Freeware was co-opted as "Free Software", the OSI came along to bastardize it and repackage it as "open source" (co-opting and existing term). You cannot coin your way out of being co-opted by bad actors. [1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html
    - remram 5y ago
      I don't know if naming is a political issue, it is a social one. If I call my software "MIT licensed", there is no ambiguity, and no politics in the meaning (though the act of picking a license can be political I guess).
pabs3 5y ago
Other possibilities: "freedomware" or "software freedom" or "user respecting software".
- remram 5y ago
  Oh, I like freedomware. Though it is not immediately obvious what kinds of freedom; I can imagine Commons Clause software being called freedomware as well.
  - naniwaduni 5y ago
    Yes, it turns out to invite confusion when you try defining "freedom" by the circumscription of an accident of Cold War era history and object to other people reading the word as if it were English.
  - bryanrasmussen 5y ago
    It's very Orwellian sounding.
- r_hoods_ghost 5y ago
  Stallmanite software
- riedel 5y ago
  Actually FOSS (just as OSS) _only_ respects the freedom of the licencee. Any ethical restrictions that are not part of the legal environment (like export control) make open source "unfree" as uncompromised openness is a precondition. IMHO opinion freedom stops there where it restricts the freedom of someone else. I think FSF is in parts neoliberal and should engage more in an ethical discussion. Just claiming to be free of ideology is ideology itself... (Edit: made clear that it is not only a FOSS but also OSI "problem")
  - pabs3 5y ago
    Definitely that is the case. I think this essay probably applies to the FSF's position on the Ethical Source movement even though it wasn't written by them: https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-source-putin-ukraine/ https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2022/mar/17/copyleft-ethical-...

thayne 5y ago

But notice that the commons clause and server side public license don't even show up on that list. There might some disagreement around where to draw the line but there is some general consensus that there is a difference between "open source" and "source available". And yet I've seen a few companies that market their product as "open source" just because their source code is on GitHub, even though the license is just as restrictive as any proprietary license.

lliamander 5y ago

The Commons Clause website agrees with the OSI that any license with the clause is not open source: https://commonsclause.com/ https://commonsclause.com/

EarlKing 5y ago

The OSI's position is particularly annoying since it's been proven over and over again that they didn't originate the term[1], they co-opted it from a pre-existing term and concept in the community to try to sell "free software" to businesses. They don't get to define it - then, now, or ever. [1] https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html https://www.arp242.net/open-source.html

cxr 5y ago

There's some sleight of hand in this comment on multiple levels. > going off this table [1] there is pretty wide disagreement of what constitutes open source between different groups Since that's not what the table represents, that's not a reasonable conclusion supported by the data in the table alone. (Coincidentally, this is the same principle undergirding Kyle's issue with OSI's post drawing unsound inferences from the Neo4J Sweden decision.) To start with, something can be GPL-incompatible without any implication about whether it's open source or not. In the second instance, something can be approved for use in the Debian project or not, but—again—that's a separate question from "Is there any legitimacy to the position that satisfying the criteria described in the Open Source Definition is a necessary precondition to being able to call something 'open source'?" NB: maintaining mental clarity about the separation between the legitimacy of that definition and the OSI's authority to "rule" on any given "record" (i.e. the legitimacy of the OSI's power, esp. in future findings) is important. Recognizing a definition as normative is a wholly separate matter from determining who gets to adjudicate whether something meets that standard. > to claim without qualification that you alone get to define and arbitrate that seems pretty crazy to me See, that's different even still! Agreeing that a given definition is legitimate is not the same as anointing any given group and its future findings as authoritative. To use an example: we can agree that "fair use" is described in Title 17 and subsequent case law. In a fair use dispute, this would not be the point of contention—both parties would acknowledge this. Which party would prevail in their action, however, would depend on a finding of fact by the courts: how the definition applies to the parties' circumstances—not whether the definition is legitimate.

bragr 5y ago
>Agreeing that a given definition is legitimate is not the same as anointing any given group and its future findings as authoritative. Clearly you didn't read the OSI blog post that this blog post is referencing >The court only confirmed what we already know – that “open source” is a term of art for software that has been licensed under a specific type of license, and whether a license is an OSI-approved license is a critically important factor in user adoption of the software. https://opensource.org/blog/court-affirms-its-false-advertising-to-claim-software-is-open-source-when-its-not https://opensource.org/blog/court-affirms-its-false-advertis...