11 ms·
> 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,
by 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.