3 ms·
> Or is "open source" just a term for "free" as in beer software that doesn't actually give people all the freedoms it should guarantee? Because that's what the
by teddyh 4y ago
> Or is "open source" just a term for "free" as in beer software that doesn't actually give people all the freedoms it should guarantee? Because that's what the FSF thinks.
No it isn’t. The OSI invented the term "Open Source” as applied to software, and they get to define its meaning as what they intended.
> Because that's what the FSF thinks.
No they don’t. The FSF completely accepts the OSI definition of the term “Open Source”: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point....
- kube-system 4y agoYou misread my comment. That page explains why the FSF does in fact believe that open source software does not give people the freedoms it "should" guarantee. The freedoms that a license "should" convey is not a fact, it is an opinion. And there are more than a few valid and honest opinions that exist, even beyond the opinions of FSF/OSI/CC/UCB/USG/Apache/FAANG/whoever
- teddyh 4y agoHow is that relevant? What does the opinion of FSF (about what a licence “should” contain) have to do what you consider to be the proper meaning of the term “Open Source”?
- kube-system 4y agoIt is a response to your point numbered "3." above. There are honest and good-willed licenses which are not OSI, written by honest and good-willed people who disagree with OSI.
- teddyh 4y agoYes, and? The FSF may disagree with the OSI on some matters, but the FSF does agree on the definition of the term “Open Source”, which was what we were discussing. Do you have a different definition of “Open Source” (as applied to software), and why should that definition take precedence over that of the definition from the OSI?
- kube-system 4y agoThere are many people who use the term differently. I am not arguing that any of them “take precedence”. I am saying the exact opposite: that more than one definition may be valid, because the English lexicon is both descriptive and additive.
- teddyh 4y agoTo bring it back to the point: The article claimed that “NLLB (No Language Left Behind) has been open sourced by Facebook”, which is misleading, since “open source” has a strict definition, and the license of NLLB did not qualify with the very first point in the OSI Open Source Definition. Facebook released the source code, under an open license; they could even call it a Creative Commons license, which it was. But the article can’t truthfully call it “open source”, since it isn’t.
- kube-system 4y agoThat isn't true. NLLB code is MIT licensed. https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq/blob/nllb/LICENSE https://github.com/facebookresearch/fairseq/blob/nllb/LICENS... The model is CC. Because models aren't code.
- teddyh 4y agoThe article said “NLLB” had been “open sourced”, not “NLLB code”.
- kube-system 4y agoOSIs licenses are only for software. If you open source things other than software, you’ll have to use a license that addresses those types of media. Which is what Facebook did. CC licenses are a popular way to “open source” non-software content.
- 4y ago