4 ms·

The term Open Source is ambiguous and has always been rejected by the original proponents of Free (as in Freedom) software as a corporatation-derived attempt to

The term Open Source is ambiguous and has always been rejected by the original proponents of Free (as in Freedom) software as a corporatation-derived attempt to lessen the ‘Freedom’ bit. So defending the term Open Source is probably not the hill to die on.

ninjin 3y ago
There are far more than two camps and FSF was born out of a culture that existed in the 60s and 70s of which the FSF is not a perfect representation either. In fact, several communities carrying that 60/70s spirit and using permissive licenses also disagree with the OSI mission and reject licenses that OSI approves (Apache 2.0 in particular). I do however think it is worth fighting against the erosion of a term that is widely accepted.
- LightFog 3y ago
  The specific term Open Source (which is what I was deliberately mentioning - rather than the notion of free or open software) is from the late 90s and was intentionally introduced to make free or open software more palatable to corporations. It itself is a deliberate watering down of the notion of free software, so it is funny to see it being defended like this.
  - ninjin 3y ago
    > It itself is a deliberate watering down of the notion of free software, so it is funny to see it being defended like this. No, because as I pointed out there are more than two camps and there are some of us that find even what OSI approves too restrictive. Just like OSI does not own the culture of open and free software, neither does FSF. Thus you can not claim that OSI watered down and corrupted the “true” spirit of free and open software. What they did was to formalise and create (some say appropriate) a term to serve their purposes and what they formalised inarguably captures a subset of what was and is open and free software. Regardless of whether we agree with their agenda or not, I do think it is fair to let them have the term they defined as it makes it easier to have a discourse around software licensing without all of the sudden including source-available licenses and the likes.

ninjin 3y ago

There are far more than two camps and FSF was born out of a culture that existed in the 60s and 70s of which the FSF is not a perfect representation either. In fact, several communities carrying that 60/70s spirit and using permissive licenses also disagree with the OSI mission and reject licenses that OSI approves (Apache 2.0 in particular). I do however think it is worth fighting against the erosion of a term that is widely accepted.

LightFog 3y ago
The specific term Open Source (which is what I was deliberately mentioning - rather than the notion of free or open software) is from the late 90s and was intentionally introduced to make free or open software more palatable to corporations. It itself is a deliberate watering down of the notion of free software, so it is funny to see it being defended like this.
- ninjin 3y ago
  > It itself is a deliberate watering down of the notion of free software, so it is funny to see it being defended like this. No, because as I pointed out there are more than two camps and there are some of us that find even what OSI approves too restrictive. Just like OSI does not own the culture of open and free software, neither does FSF. Thus you can not claim that OSI watered down and corrupted the “true” spirit of free and open software. What they did was to formalise and create (some say appropriate) a term to serve their purposes and what they formalised inarguably captures a subset of what was and is open and free software. Regardless of whether we agree with their agenda or not, I do think it is fair to let them have the term they defined as it makes it easier to have a discourse around software licensing without all of the sudden including source-available licenses and the likes.