6 ms·

Non-thoughts on the Open Source Initiative (2020)

73 points by pabs3 3y ago

jrm4 3y ago
Obligatory "Stallman was right?" I'm not much familiar with what the OSI is in any specific sense; but yes, "Open Source" has always been a nebulous term that fits the container of who's using it. I like the great point of e.g. JS being the real "on the ground open source" for better and (often) worse; it's provided a lot of good real life lessons on the limitations of vague ideas and why real licenses with hard tooth legal rules are important. Generally, I think we've seen "why you really do need lawyers." I like ideas like Creative Commons and e.g. the Do WTF you want license, but they're no substitute for grown-up law.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  MIT is a do wtf you want license, and all the people who call themselves adults and call gnu children LOVE it. I don't think they are adults, it's usually not adults who use the word. No one cries "unfair!" or "selfish!" more than a proprietary coder who can't use some gpl code, and the louder they cry the more they themselves advertise how simply correct and necessary that license is. Stallman was and is right.
  - pessimizer 3y ago
    I've gotten to prefer referring to FSF licenses as "restrictive licenses," which was the name that open source or even the "public domain software" people would throw at them. I'm happy to say that FSF licenses are more like "proprietary" licenses than open source licenses. So when a proprietary coder complains about not being able to use GPL'd code, I just ask them why we can't use all of their proprietary code. They have as much right to steal from the public as the public has to steal from them. Or maybe a little less, due to democracy. The GPLs restrict software authors from being the masters of their users, without requiring them to be the servants of their users. Since the author is choosing the license, it's a voluntary relinquishment of rights that should never have been given by government to merchants. You choose open source if instead you want to give away the those rights (the rights to obscure functionality and lock people out of their own possessions) to whoever wants them. When Amazon picks those up, don't cry about it.
    - Brian_K_White 3y ago
      GPL only restricts one from being a dick. "Unfair!" If someone requires other terms, the existence of GPL code in no way restricts them from writing or buying other code that is compatible with whatever terms they require. Anyone crying about that is only crying that they are not allowed to steal something that is already free. From an authors perspective, do what you want. Don't use GPL if you don't share the single value it enshrines. It doesn't make you righter or more rational or the GPL wrong or anything like that, and the desire to rent out access to the use of a secret is the most common and least interesting thing in the world, as is the desire to try to present that as being any sort of principle about freedom instead of the crass food-gathering thing that it is.
      - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        [flagged]
        Dah00n 3y ago
        Take a deep breath and try again.
        iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        LOL where's the lie? if you have to send lawyers after someone for stealing something which was free, it's not free. it's just a cult of flatulence inhalers that think that permissively licensed code is breaking their precious rules by declining to sue innocent people for keeping their own work. as has been made readily apparent in this thread
        brenns10 3y ago
        GPL breakers wouldn't be breaking GPL if they kept their own work. They break it when they distribute a compiled work that's only partly theirs, and mainly somebody else's, without sharing the source code for it. You're more than welcome to build on GPL code and keep your own work. Just don't distribute it.
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    go sue more schoolchildren for not publishing their modifications to "libre" code
    - Dah00n 3y ago
      Lots of angry posts. How about adding something interesting?
      - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        [flagged]
        vincent-manis 3y ago
        Your comments would bear more weight if you were to describe your philosophical objections to the GPL.
        iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        How about its unenforceable self-aggrandizing nonsense about how everything is a derivative work as long as two files were ever in the same room together? Sounds like the easiest way to get the code to the nuclear football--just trick them into touching a GPL file. Just because a contract says something is a derivative work doesn't mean that it is legally. I see GPL bros as vexatious children armed with lawyers. Like Oracle.
        mdwalters 3y ago
        I am struggling to see your point. Are you trying to say that "GPLers" are supposed to stop using GPL because of popularity and strict terms?
        iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        Popularity? Yeah, among corporate lawyers. It's no accident that Oracle v. Google went like 12 years. Strict terms? Yeah. When free and permissive are said to be opposites, you know you're in a psych ward.
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    if you dump your shitty code into piles of non-shit code, of course people are going to look at you like you're a degen. especially when they're forced to clean up your mess
Pannoniae 3y ago
OSI is an industry-advocate organisation. Their definition of "Open Source" is purposefully written to enable exploitation and SaaS-ificiation of open source software. Even if the Ethical Source guys and their Hippocratic License might not be watertight, it's still a much better effort than "you can use it for anything you want". Leeching and entitlement is highly prevalent (just watch what happens when someone accidentally publishes software with a wrong license and the abuse they get for correcting their mistake) and the whole original philosophy of open source is being disregarded.
- mrob 3y ago
  Obeying the terms of the license is not "leeching" or "entitlement". Permissive licenses are permissive by design. If you don't want people including your Open Source code in their proprietary software, use a license that prohibits this, such as the AGPL. The Open Source Definition allows for both permissive and copyleft licenses, and says nothing about which is philosophically preferable.
  - oaiey 3y ago
    Our industry somehow lacks a good understanding of licenses. Like you outline, just use a different license. They might not attract people to contribute (because everyone has motives) but prevent all the aspects of behavior you do not want to see.
    - version_five 3y ago
      I think people have a reasonable understanding, they just want to have their cake and eat it too. Something with e.g. a noncommercial license (or gpl) is way less likely to gain wide adoption so people don't license it that way. Then when it does get used they call it leeching. I think (maybe controversially) it's the same when people talk about training AI on web content. People want all the upside of their choice of distribution (wider exposure) but complain about the perceived downside (somebody other than them profiting).
      - 3y ago
oaiey 3y ago
The OSI (as described here) would be in the primary position to make suggestion and even legal frameworks for cooperations to pay for open source maintainers etc. One of the core problems of open source. Indeed, beyond license listings, they are not addressing the big problems we have.
- wmf 3y ago
  Any such framework would be incompatible with the OSD. OSI isn't going to repudiate thirty years of work. It's time to move on.
  - tedivm 3y ago
    Frameworks do not necessarily mean license changes or requirements. Look at OpenSSL. They went for years with basically no money, had horrible security issues, and then got a ton of sponsorships because companies realized they relied on it. The OSI can do a variety of things that help open source contributors and maintainers beyond just licenses. Most developers aren't good at things like fundraising, as it's not their core competency. In an ideal world the OSI would build industry connections and use that to funnel money to projects that need it, while also helping build knowledge that smaller projects can use to market themselves. None of that requires turning their back on their open source principles. Legal frameworks, as mentioned above, can even be as simple as making it easier to get tax breaks when donating to open source projects, or having prebuilt legal agreements that help small projects work with big companies for funding in a streamlined way. To be honest, this is why the OSI and FSF have been so disappointing to me. There's a huge amount of space here for advocacy, public policy initiates, and so much more. Unfortunately these groups are so insular and stuck in their ways, and would rather do things like defend abortion jokes when they could be building communities, that I don't have much hope. However, there really is a lot that could be done without making any changes to the licenses.
  - ninjin 3y ago
    No it would not. They could very well work towards a way to facilitate payments to those that produce code compatible with the Open Source Definition. If they want, have the capacity, and have a good idea in terms of how to do so is a different matter entirely.
randoramax 3y ago
This is from 2020 https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://yakshav.es/non-thoughts-on-the-osi/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://yakshav....
- dang 3y ago
  Added. Thanks!
maffulli 3y ago
OSI executive director here. I read this article and all the responses to the survey ran by Hashman before I was hired by the organization 2 years ago. There is very valuable feedback here and I took it seriously. In the 3 years since the original post was published, the OSI has changed in many ways although it remains a small non-profit with only 2 full time people on staff and a handful of part time consultants. I recommend to read our 2022 end of year report https://opensource.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2022-OSI-AnnualReport-final.pdf https://opensource.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2022-OSI-A... to get a quick glance of what we've done and check out our programs page https://opensource.org/programs https://opensource.org/programs for what we're doing now.
riffraff 3y ago
I feel this article is mildly unfair towards the peel community. The perl user groups, perl mongers etc have been incredibly diffused and grassroot movements, including cheap conferences and such. I'm no perl dev, but I think most of what subsequent communities did right builds on the camel's path.
jongjong 3y ago
Real open source is dead. These days only corporate or institutional-backed open source projects are allowed to propagate. Most of these projects have an agenda beyond merely facilitating collaboration between developers.
- greentext 3y ago
  > These days only corporate or institutional-backed open source projects are allowed to propagate. What do you mean? Can you unpack this?
  - jongjong 3y ago
    The algorithms of all major search, social and media platforms favor open source projects which are developed by or backed by major platforms. A project cannot propagate without exposure to users and the major platforms decide which projects will have exposure to users.
    - greentext 3y ago
      It is time to crack down on tech giants. Break them up already. We can beat them, so stop joining them.
      - Dah00n 3y ago
        There need to be a license change for this to be possible.
        pabs3 3y ago
        A license change wouldn't be compatible with the Open Source Definition, but people moving away from Big Tech open source projects would be. Switch away from their languages and operating systems. I think the poster above was suggesting anti-trust lawsuits though, get the US government to split them up.
        ninjin 3y ago
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
ocdtrekkie 3y ago
The OSI has routinely sided with big tech companies who build proprietary platforms over the needs of companies trying to build entirely open source companies in a sustainable way. I have little to no faith in the OSI or its value to open software, I find it a tiring gatekeeper, and every conversation I've had with OSI leadership has pushed me even further into that conviction. If the OSI was truly interested in spreading open source, its sole focus would be in developing a license that allows the sustainable development of open source code outside of a FAANG.
- pabs3 3y ago
  Such a license wouldn't be compatible with the Open Source Definition, but they could encourage cultural and other practices to enable sustainable FOSS production. The GPL is hard enough to get people to comply with and not outright ignore, Ethical Source licenses like what you suggest are going to have an even harder time enforcing compliance.
  - ocdtrekkie 3y ago
    Bluntly: If the Open Source Definition says it's better to let Amazon put open source companies out of business while producing lock-in proprietary services than ask Amazon to support open source, the Open Source Definition is broken and we should clear out any entities in the way of fixing it. The OSI exists not to spread open source, but preserve Google and Amazon's access to free labor.
    - toenail 3y ago
      Open Source was never about guaranteeing company profits. You're just putting one company above another, while ignoring that one company was the user and open source is about user rights. The companies that pretended to be open source for a while to get access to free labor and marketing are not one bit better than Amazon or Google.
pabs3 3y ago
For me the biggest issue the OSI has today is that the phrase "open source" is becoming disconnected from the Open Source Definition, some of that is deliberate and some of that is people who knew the phrase but not the definition. The language around FOSS is evolving for the worse. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases
- pabs3 3y ago
  The biggest willful misuse of the "open source" phrase seem to come from those who haven't internalised the sentence "Open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation". https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your-monopoly.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your...
  - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
    and Free Software is software that doesn't come with a pile of inane rules that bind the recipient. i.e. it's not a virus which attempts to extract as much value from the recipient as possible.

73 points by pabs3 3y ago

jrm4 3y ago

Obligatory "Stallman was right?" I'm not much familiar with what the OSI is in any specific sense; but yes, "Open Source" has always been a nebulous term that fits the container of who's using it. I like the great point of e.g. JS being the real "on the ground open source" for better and (often) worse; it's provided a lot of good real life lessons on the limitations of vague ideas and why real licenses with hard tooth legal rules are important. Generally, I think we've seen "why you really do need lawyers." I like ideas like Creative Commons and e.g. the Do WTF you want license, but they're no substitute for grown-up law.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
Brian_K_White 3y ago
MIT is a do wtf you want license, and all the people who call themselves adults and call gnu children LOVE it. I don't think they are adults, it's usually not adults who use the word. No one cries "unfair!" or "selfish!" more than a proprietary coder who can't use some gpl code, and the louder they cry the more they themselves advertise how simply correct and necessary that license is. Stallman was and is right.
- pessimizer 3y ago
  I've gotten to prefer referring to FSF licenses as "restrictive licenses," which was the name that open source or even the "public domain software" people would throw at them. I'm happy to say that FSF licenses are more like "proprietary" licenses than open source licenses. So when a proprietary coder complains about not being able to use GPL'd code, I just ask them why we can't use all of their proprietary code. They have as much right to steal from the public as the public has to steal from them. Or maybe a little less, due to democracy. The GPLs restrict software authors from being the masters of their users, without requiring them to be the servants of their users. Since the author is choosing the license, it's a voluntary relinquishment of rights that should never have been given by government to merchants. You choose open source if instead you want to give away the those rights (the rights to obscure functionality and lock people out of their own possessions) to whoever wants them. When Amazon picks those up, don't cry about it.
  - Brian_K_White 3y ago
    GPL only restricts one from being a dick. "Unfair!" If someone requires other terms, the existence of GPL code in no way restricts them from writing or buying other code that is compatible with whatever terms they require. Anyone crying about that is only crying that they are not allowed to steal something that is already free. From an authors perspective, do what you want. Don't use GPL if you don't share the single value it enshrines. It doesn't make you righter or more rational or the GPL wrong or anything like that, and the desire to rent out access to the use of a secret is the most common and least interesting thing in the world, as is the desire to try to present that as being any sort of principle about freedom instead of the crass food-gathering thing that it is.
    - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - Dah00n 3y ago
        Take a deep breath and try again.
        iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        LOL where's the lie? if you have to send lawyers after someone for stealing something which was free, it's not free. it's just a cult of flatulence inhalers that think that permissively licensed code is breaking their precious rules by declining to sue innocent people for keeping their own work. as has been made readily apparent in this thread
        brenns10 3y ago
        GPL breakers wouldn't be breaking GPL if they kept their own work. They break it when they distribute a compiled work that's only partly theirs, and mainly somebody else's, without sharing the source code for it. You're more than welcome to build on GPL code and keep your own work. Just don't distribute it.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  go sue more schoolchildren for not publishing their modifications to "libre" code
  - Dah00n 3y ago
    Lots of angry posts. How about adding something interesting?
    - iraqmtpizza 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - vincent-manis 3y ago
        Your comments would bear more weight if you were to describe your philosophical objections to the GPL.
        iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        How about its unenforceable self-aggrandizing nonsense about how everything is a derivative work as long as two files were ever in the same room together? Sounds like the easiest way to get the code to the nuclear football--just trick them into touching a GPL file. Just because a contract says something is a derivative work doesn't mean that it is legally. I see GPL bros as vexatious children armed with lawyers. Like Oracle.
      - mdwalters 3y ago
        I am struggling to see your point. Are you trying to say that "GPLers" are supposed to stop using GPL because of popularity and strict terms?
        iraqmtpizza 3y ago
        Popularity? Yeah, among corporate lawyers. It's no accident that Oracle v. Google went like 12 years. Strict terms? Yeah. When free and permissive are said to be opposites, you know you're in a psych ward.
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  if you dump your shitty code into piles of non-shit code, of course people are going to look at you like you're a degen. especially when they're forced to clean up your mess

Pannoniae 3y ago

OSI is an industry-advocate organisation. Their definition of "Open Source" is purposefully written to enable exploitation and SaaS-ificiation of open source software. Even if the Ethical Source guys and their Hippocratic License might not be watertight, it's still a much better effort than "you can use it for anything you want". Leeching and entitlement is highly prevalent (just watch what happens when someone accidentally publishes software with a wrong license and the abuse they get for correcting their mistake) and the whole original philosophy of open source is being disregarded.

mrob 3y ago
Obeying the terms of the license is not "leeching" or "entitlement". Permissive licenses are permissive by design. If you don't want people including your Open Source code in their proprietary software, use a license that prohibits this, such as the AGPL. The Open Source Definition allows for both permissive and copyleft licenses, and says nothing about which is philosophically preferable.
- oaiey 3y ago
  Our industry somehow lacks a good understanding of licenses. Like you outline, just use a different license. They might not attract people to contribute (because everyone has motives) but prevent all the aspects of behavior you do not want to see.
  - version_five 3y ago
    I think people have a reasonable understanding, they just want to have their cake and eat it too. Something with e.g. a noncommercial license (or gpl) is way less likely to gain wide adoption so people don't license it that way. Then when it does get used they call it leeching. I think (maybe controversially) it's the same when people talk about training AI on web content. People want all the upside of their choice of distribution (wider exposure) but complain about the perceived downside (somebody other than them profiting).
    - 3y ago

oaiey 3y ago

The OSI (as described here) would be in the primary position to make suggestion and even legal frameworks for cooperations to pay for open source maintainers etc. One of the core problems of open source. Indeed, beyond license listings, they are not addressing the big problems we have.

wmf 3y ago
Any such framework would be incompatible with the OSD. OSI isn't going to repudiate thirty years of work. It's time to move on.
- tedivm 3y ago
  Frameworks do not necessarily mean license changes or requirements. Look at OpenSSL. They went for years with basically no money, had horrible security issues, and then got a ton of sponsorships because companies realized they relied on it. The OSI can do a variety of things that help open source contributors and maintainers beyond just licenses. Most developers aren't good at things like fundraising, as it's not their core competency. In an ideal world the OSI would build industry connections and use that to funnel money to projects that need it, while also helping build knowledge that smaller projects can use to market themselves. None of that requires turning their back on their open source principles. Legal frameworks, as mentioned above, can even be as simple as making it easier to get tax breaks when donating to open source projects, or having prebuilt legal agreements that help small projects work with big companies for funding in a streamlined way. To be honest, this is why the OSI and FSF have been so disappointing to me. There's a huge amount of space here for advocacy, public policy initiates, and so much more. Unfortunately these groups are so insular and stuck in their ways, and would rather do things like defend abortion jokes when they could be building communities, that I don't have much hope. However, there really is a lot that could be done without making any changes to the licenses.
- ninjin 3y ago
  No it would not. They could very well work towards a way to facilitate payments to those that produce code compatible with the Open Source Definition. If they want, have the capacity, and have a good idea in terms of how to do so is a different matter entirely.

randoramax 3y ago

This is from 2020 https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://yakshav.es/non-thoughts-on-the-osi/ https://web.archive.org/web/20230000000000*/https://yakshav....

dang 3y ago
Added. Thanks!

maffulli 3y ago

OSI executive director here. I read this article and all the responses to the survey ran by Hashman before I was hired by the organization 2 years ago. There is very valuable feedback here and I took it seriously. In the 3 years since the original post was published, the OSI has changed in many ways although it remains a small non-profit with only 2 full time people on staff and a handful of part time consultants. I recommend to read our 2022 end of year report https://opensource.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2022-OSI-AnnualReport-final.pdf https://opensource.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/2022-OSI-A... to get a quick glance of what we've done and check out our programs page https://opensource.org/programs https://opensource.org/programs for what we're doing now.

riffraff 3y ago

I feel this article is mildly unfair towards the peel community. The perl user groups, perl mongers etc have been incredibly diffused and grassroot movements, including cheap conferences and such. I'm no perl dev, but I think most of what subsequent communities did right builds on the camel's path.

jongjong 3y ago

Real open source is dead. These days only corporate or institutional-backed open source projects are allowed to propagate. Most of these projects have an agenda beyond merely facilitating collaboration between developers.

greentext 3y ago
> These days only corporate or institutional-backed open source projects are allowed to propagate. What do you mean? Can you unpack this?
- jongjong 3y ago
  The algorithms of all major search, social and media platforms favor open source projects which are developed by or backed by major platforms. A project cannot propagate without exposure to users and the major platforms decide which projects will have exposure to users.
  - greentext 3y ago
    It is time to crack down on tech giants. Break them up already. We can beat them, so stop joining them.
    - Dah00n 3y ago
      There need to be a license change for this to be possible.
      - pabs3 3y ago
        A license change wouldn't be compatible with the Open Source Definition, but people moving away from Big Tech open source projects would be. Switch away from their languages and operating systems. I think the poster above was suggesting anti-trust lawsuits though, get the US government to split them up.
      - ninjin 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

ocdtrekkie 3y ago

The OSI has routinely sided with big tech companies who build proprietary platforms over the needs of companies trying to build entirely open source companies in a sustainable way. I have little to no faith in the OSI or its value to open software, I find it a tiring gatekeeper, and every conversation I've had with OSI leadership has pushed me even further into that conviction. If the OSI was truly interested in spreading open source, its sole focus would be in developing a license that allows the sustainable development of open source code outside of a FAANG.

pabs3 3y ago
Such a license wouldn't be compatible with the Open Source Definition, but they could encourage cultural and other practices to enable sustainable FOSS production. The GPL is hard enough to get people to comply with and not outright ignore, Ethical Source licenses like what you suggest are going to have an even harder time enforcing compliance.
- ocdtrekkie 3y ago
  Bluntly: If the Open Source Definition says it's better to let Amazon put open source companies out of business while producing lock-in proprietary services than ask Amazon to support open source, the Open Source Definition is broken and we should clear out any entities in the way of fixing it. The OSI exists not to spread open source, but preserve Google and Amazon's access to free labor.
  - toenail 3y ago
    Open Source was never about guaranteeing company profits. You're just putting one company above another, while ignoring that one company was the user and open source is about user rights. The companies that pretended to be open source for a while to get access to free labor and marketing are not one bit better than Amazon or Google.

pabs3 3y ago

For me the biggest issue the OSI has today is that the phrase "open source" is becoming disconnected from the Open Source Definition, some of that is deliberate and some of that is people who knew the phrase but not the definition. The language around FOSS is evolving for the worse. https://opensource.org/osd https://opensource.org/osd https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases https://github.com/ssddanbrown/Open-Source-Confusion-Cases

pabs3 3y ago
The biggest willful misuse of the "open source" phrase seem to come from those who haven't internalised the sentence "Open source means surrendering your monopoly over commercial exploitation". https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your-monopoly.html https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your...
- iraqmtpizza 3y ago
  and Free Software is software that doesn't come with a pile of inane rules that bind the recipient. i.e. it's not a virus which attempts to extract as much value from the recipient as possible.