3 ms·

OSI being in charge of open source is like that Indian tribe that sold Manhattan to the white man for 28 dollars. They are always cited as being idiots but they

by dizhn 4y ago

OSI being in charge of open source is like that Indian tribe that sold Manhattan to the white man for 28 dollars. They are always cited as being idiots but they were selling another tribe's land and were happy to get paid for it. Likewise people like Eric Raymond were only too happy to facilitate the businessification of free software for a little time in the limelight.

skybrian 4y ago
No it's not, that doesn't make any sense. Defining a standard term is nothing like selling land.
- dizhn 4y ago
  Who said anything about defining a standard term? It's about one organization appropriating years of work like they've been the ones doing it all along and corporations being all too happy to accept it as such because it is good for business.
  - pessimizer 4y ago
    Free Software's only relationship to Open Source is that you can relicense OSS with the GPL just by kissing it (as long as you comply with any minor strangeness in the OSS license.) Open Source tried to steal the energy of Free Software and steer it in a business friendly direction, but they didn't steal the term "Open Source" any more than Free Software stole the term "Free" from "free beer." These are just terms of art, certifications by two very established and influential certification bodies, and wittering on about whether somebody said they were "going to open the source and let people have a look at it" in 1973 is as irrelevant as the fact that plastic polymers are organic but not "Organic."
    - dizhn 4y ago
      Are you all replying to something the parent said or something? I am not talking about something so simple as the term "open source". In my eyes open source is free software just in a shinier package. (We do seem to be largely in agreement you and I by the way)
  - skybrian 4y ago
    AS far as I know, OSI didn’t appropriate anyone’s work. If you’re going to make an accusation like that, you should explain specifically what you mean. what work? Where do they claim ownership? Who had ownership before? How do you know?

by dizhn 4y ago

skybrian 4y ago

No it's not, that doesn't make any sense. Defining a standard term is nothing like selling land.

dizhn 4y ago
Who said anything about defining a standard term? It's about one organization appropriating years of work like they've been the ones doing it all along and corporations being all too happy to accept it as such because it is good for business.
- pessimizer 4y ago
  Free Software's only relationship to Open Source is that you can relicense OSS with the GPL just by kissing it (as long as you comply with any minor strangeness in the OSS license.) Open Source tried to steal the energy of Free Software and steer it in a business friendly direction, but they didn't steal the term "Open Source" any more than Free Software stole the term "Free" from "free beer." These are just terms of art, certifications by two very established and influential certification bodies, and wittering on about whether somebody said they were "going to open the source and let people have a look at it" in 1973 is as irrelevant as the fact that plastic polymers are organic but not "Organic."
  - dizhn 4y ago
    Are you all replying to something the parent said or something? I am not talking about something so simple as the term "open source". In my eyes open source is free software just in a shinier package. (We do seem to be largely in agreement you and I by the way)
- skybrian 4y ago
  AS far as I know, OSI didn’t appropriate anyone’s work. If you’re going to make an accusation like that, you should explain specifically what you mean. what work? Where do they claim ownership? Who had ownership before? How do you know?