4 ms·

> The current definition allows all users to use the open source software as they wish. And there's no problem with that. If you want to restrict how your soft

> The current definition allows all users to use the open source software as they wish. And there's no problem with that. If you want to restrict how your software is used while making the source publicly available, then go ahead and release your source-available software. However, mislabeling your restricted source-available software as open source will earn you opposition from all of the FOSS developers who do grant all of their users the ability to use their software as they wish, and from all of the FOSS users who are specifically looking for all of the freedoms afforded by FOSS licenses. Marketing restricted source-available software as open source is like mislabeling your product as "Made in Country X" when it is only assembled in Country X while all the parts are manufactured in Country Y. What you are trying to do to the term open source is like proposing that the definition of "Made in Country X" be changed so that it encompasses products that are not actually made in Country X. It's misleading and nobody appreciates that. The philosophy of open source software revolves around software being available for anyone to use for any reason. Open source software developers know that among all of the users of their software, a portion of those users will more than likely be people or companies they dislike who use it for reasons they find reprehensible. Any developer who wants to limit the people or uses of their software can do so by adopting a restrictive source-available license, but by doing so, that software is not open source anymore. > For one, it would give users the right to protect their privacy. Absolutely not. Using a license to restrict what users do with software does not protect their privacy. There is nothing about MongoDB's source-available Server Side Public License that is better for user privacy than the open source MIT License and AGPLv3. There is also something deeply ironic about suggesting that Meta, a company known for its privacy violations, is somehow preserving user privacy by making its software source-available instead of open source.

JasonGoldman 3y ago
It is definitely an option to keep the definition of open source as it is today. But I don't think it's beneficial. Unlike "Made in Country" that can be interpreted by understanding the meaning of the words, the definition of "open source" is not about semantics at all. Although referred to as "definition", it's really a set of rules historically decided by OSI. It's meant to be revised and it actually did until version 1.9. Think of OSD as land transport rules from 1997. It's not wise to insist that we should use the same rules today, or if we come up with more relevant rules we should call them something other than land transport rules. On a relevant note, I find "hackable software" a more accurate term for what's advertised as "free" and "open source" software. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-is-hackable-software/22 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-is-hackable-software/22 The term "open source" is already hijacked by companies for their financial gain. Preventing improvements to the definition would help them, but not the open source community. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/is-open-source-relevant-to-your-needs/18 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/is-open-source-relevant-to-your... > There is nothing about MongoDB's source-available Server Side Public License that is better for user privacy than the open source MIT License and AGPLv3. When I mentioned privacy, I was referring the the upcoming definition (that is not published yet).
- commoner 3y ago
  FOSS developers and users have been using the terms free software, open source software, and free and open source software for decades to describe software that is licensed in a way that allows any user to use, modify, and redistribute it for any purpose. There is nothing wrong with a company using these terms to describe their software when the software preserves these user freedoms. What you are trying to do is hijack the term open source to enable companies like Meta to market their proprietary software using the goodwill generated by the FOSS movement, without actually providing the user freedoms that FOSS developers have been ensuring and FOSS users have been expecting. That is not an "improvement", even though it is a newer suggestion, because it violates the expectations of FOSS developers and FOSS users. The free software movement originated in the 1980s and the open source software movement originated in the 1990s. There is no way FOSS developers and FOSS users will switch to a phrase that you just made up ("hackable software") to allow companies like Meta to hijack a term that originated from these movements to advertise their software in a misleading fashion.
  - JasonGoldman 3y ago
    > What you are trying to do is hijack the term open source to enable companies like Meta to market their proprietary software using the goodwill generated by the FOSS movement Meta has already called it's software open source. And it may be fair enough. > There is no way FOSS developers and FOSS users will switch to a phrase that you just made up ("hackable software") Phrases are usually made up by someone, but not one has to switch if they really don't want to.
    - commoner 3y ago
      > Meta has already called it's software open source. And it may be fair enough. Llama 2 is not open source for two reasons. First and most importantly, the license restricts certain types of commercial use, while open source software preserves the user's freedom to use the software for any purpose. Second: > "Meta using the term ‘open source’ for this is positively misleading: There is no source to be seen, the training data is entirely undocumented, and beyond the glossy charts the technical documentation is really rather poor. We do not know why Meta is so intent on getting everyone into this model, but the history of this company’s choices does not inspire confidence. Users beware." https://spectrum.ieee.org/open-source-llm-not-open https://spectrum.ieee.org/open-source-llm-not-open

JasonGoldman 3y ago

It is definitely an option to keep the definition of open source as it is today. But I don't think it's beneficial. Unlike "Made in Country" that can be interpreted by understanding the meaning of the words, the definition of "open source" is not about semantics at all. Although referred to as "definition", it's really a set of rules historically decided by OSI. It's meant to be revised and it actually did until version 1.9. Think of OSD as land transport rules from 1997. It's not wise to insist that we should use the same rules today, or if we come up with more relevant rules we should call them something other than land transport rules. On a relevant note, I find "hackable software" a more accurate term for what's advertised as "free" and "open source" software. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-is-hackable-software/22 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-is-hackable-software/22 The term "open source" is already hijacked by companies for their financial gain. Preventing improvements to the definition would help them, but not the open source community. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/is-open-source-relevant-to-your-needs/18 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/is-open-source-relevant-to-your... > There is nothing about MongoDB's source-available Server Side Public License that is better for user privacy than the open source MIT License and AGPLv3. When I mentioned privacy, I was referring the the upcoming definition (that is not published yet).

commoner 3y ago
FOSS developers and users have been using the terms free software, open source software, and free and open source software for decades to describe software that is licensed in a way that allows any user to use, modify, and redistribute it for any purpose. There is nothing wrong with a company using these terms to describe their software when the software preserves these user freedoms. What you are trying to do is hijack the term open source to enable companies like Meta to market their proprietary software using the goodwill generated by the FOSS movement, without actually providing the user freedoms that FOSS developers have been ensuring and FOSS users have been expecting. That is not an "improvement", even though it is a newer suggestion, because it violates the expectations of FOSS developers and FOSS users. The free software movement originated in the 1980s and the open source software movement originated in the 1990s. There is no way FOSS developers and FOSS users will switch to a phrase that you just made up ("hackable software") to allow companies like Meta to hijack a term that originated from these movements to advertise their software in a misleading fashion.
- JasonGoldman 3y ago
  > What you are trying to do is hijack the term open source to enable companies like Meta to market their proprietary software using the goodwill generated by the FOSS movement Meta has already called it's software open source. And it may be fair enough. > There is no way FOSS developers and FOSS users will switch to a phrase that you just made up ("hackable software") Phrases are usually made up by someone, but not one has to switch if they really don't want to.
  - commoner 3y ago
    > Meta has already called it's software open source. And it may be fair enough. Llama 2 is not open source for two reasons. First and most importantly, the license restricts certain types of commercial use, while open source software preserves the user's freedom to use the software for any purpose. Second: > "Meta using the term ‘open source’ for this is positively misleading: There is no source to be seen, the training data is entirely undocumented, and beyond the glossy charts the technical documentation is really rather poor. We do not know why Meta is so intent on getting everyone into this model, but the history of this company’s choices does not inspire confidence. Users beware." https://spectrum.ieee.org/open-source-llm-not-open https://spectrum.ieee.org/open-source-llm-not-open