4 ms·

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 interpr

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

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