3 ms·

Richard Stallman has long argued for [1] and established [2] the same thing as a requirement for open source, and I don't think anyone would accuse him of being

Richard Stallman has long argued for [1] and established [2] the same thing as a requirement for open source, and I don't think anyone would accuse him of being a shill for "business interests". It's a (these days popular) rewriting of history to suggest that "big business interests" are the only reason open source definitions do not allow authors to restrict what a user can do with the software. Rather, from the start, this was seen as a fundamental freedom, the freedom to run the software as you wish rather than have to get permission from the copyright holder as to how you are to use it, where you are to run it, for what purposes. It's, for instance, been part of the GNU license since before OSI even existed, and in those days I don't think anyone would argue GNU was a tool controlled by "business interests". In fact, the reason people now don't seem to like this requirement for "freedom to run" is precisely because it interferes with their "business interests", their desire to make money from open source. That may be a respectable desire -- but open source does not conflict with it becuase of "business interests", but the opposite, because it's ethos was from the start about the rights of users to have freedom to use software, not about "business interests" in profiting from it. [1]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freedom-to-run.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/programs-must-not-limit-freed... [2]: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

mrtranscendence 4y ago
You're avoiding the fly in the ointment, which is that the definition of "open source" that is advocated by the OSI is not without controversy and does not necessarily comport with how the term "open source" is used in everyday language. (I don't really care what Richard Stallman thinks here, FWIW.) Thus it's not immediately clear to me that you can say without reservation that software with available, noncommercially-licensed source code fails to be "open source" -- as when I use "open source" I and many others mean something different from what the OSI means.
- jrochkind1 4y ago
  You are avoiding the "fly in the ointment" that open source has always meant freedom to run it how, where, and for the purposes the user wants, from before the OSI even existed, and your and many other people's use is in fact not only an attempt to change the historical meaning, but a change that is motivated by the business interests of those who would like to profit off of selling software licenses while still calling that software "open source". But sure, you are part of a movement to change the definition of open source to suit certain business interests in opposition to the original principles of freedom that motivated the concept of open source. I acknowledge that movement exists, and that you all are attempting to change the meaning of open source. People have tried to change the meaning of open source to suit their business interests since it began, but there is a new wave of invigorated effort to put holes in the meaning of open source to serve certain business interests. I don't think you have succeeded yet, and I hope you do not, and I'll keep pointing it out. If anyone can call anything they want open source, of course various business interests will, since it is viewed as an attractive label.
  - mrtranscendence 4y ago
    > But sure, you are part of a movement to change the definition of open source to suit certain business interests in opposition to the original principles of freedom that motivated the concept of open source. I am not a part of anything here, unless I suppose you want to place me in a very loose group of linguistic descriptivists. I am concerned here with how the phrase "open source" is actually used across the breadth of English speakers, not with how it is defined solely by groups and persons with specific political goals.

mrtranscendence 4y ago

You're avoiding the fly in the ointment, which is that the definition of "open source" that is advocated by the OSI is not without controversy and does not necessarily comport with how the term "open source" is used in everyday language. (I don't really care what Richard Stallman thinks here, FWIW.) Thus it's not immediately clear to me that you can say without reservation that software with available, noncommercially-licensed source code fails to be "open source" -- as when I use "open source" I and many others mean something different from what the OSI means.

jrochkind1 4y ago
You are avoiding the "fly in the ointment" that open source has always meant freedom to run it how, where, and for the purposes the user wants, from before the OSI even existed, and your and many other people's use is in fact not only an attempt to change the historical meaning, but a change that is motivated by the business interests of those who would like to profit off of selling software licenses while still calling that software "open source". But sure, you are part of a movement to change the definition of open source to suit certain business interests in opposition to the original principles of freedom that motivated the concept of open source. I acknowledge that movement exists, and that you all are attempting to change the meaning of open source. People have tried to change the meaning of open source to suit their business interests since it began, but there is a new wave of invigorated effort to put holes in the meaning of open source to serve certain business interests. I don't think you have succeeded yet, and I hope you do not, and I'll keep pointing it out. If anyone can call anything they want open source, of course various business interests will, since it is viewed as an attractive label.
- mrtranscendence 4y ago
  > But sure, you are part of a movement to change the definition of open source to suit certain business interests in opposition to the original principles of freedom that motivated the concept of open source. I am not a part of anything here, unless I suppose you want to place me in a very loose group of linguistic descriptivists. I am concerned here with how the phrase "open source" is actually used across the breadth of English speakers, not with how it is defined solely by groups and persons with specific political goals.