4 ms·
But then don't try to keep those Entitled $BigCorps out of the way, because the definition of OSS was clearly and strictly written to keep them in, otherwise yo
by j1elo 4y ago
But then don't try to keep those Entitled $BigCorps out of the way, because the definition of OSS was clearly and strictly written to keep them in, otherwise you're straying out of the golden path and your software is not technically "OSS" any more... it's a complex world.
- capableweb 4y ago> because the definition of OSS was clearly and strictly written to keep them in, What? No definition of OSS I know of forces you to engage with anyone at all, unless you want to. You can slap MIT on random code you write, host it on a HTML page with no further information available or interaction allowed, and that's perfectly fine OSS.
- tpxl 4y agoParent is referring to people saying licenses like SSPL are not Open Source (and they are not by some definitions).
- ZeroGravitas 4y agoI think they are referring to "open source" being a corporate friendly rebranding of "Free Software". At the time it was drama about GPL which proprietary software forms didn't like but in the modern server world that isn't as relevant.
- ensignavenger 4y agoThe SSPL is being promoted and used by big tech companies that are selling software to other big tech companies. If it was about keeping big tech out, I think it is failing. And it isn't open source, it promotes vendor lock in and discourages successful forking. It is the antithesis of FOSS.
- j1elo 4y agoThe definition of OSS doesn't force you to bring someone into your house, but it does very clearly forbid you from keeping them outside.