6 ms·

> Imaging you want to bring down and rebuild a temple because it's constructed with asbestos (which now we know is carcinogenic) That's a terrible analogy, bec

> Imaging you want to bring down and rebuild a temple because it's constructed with asbestos (which now we know is carcinogenic) That's a terrible analogy, because open source software is not "carcinogenic". If you don't want to use open source software, then simply don't use it. If you don't want to develop open source software, then use a license that is not open source. Your argument sounds just like Steve Ballmer calling Linux a "cancer" in 2001 because he considered it a threat to his commercial ambitions: https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_cancer/ https://www.theregister.com/2001/06/02/ballmer_linux_is_a_ca... > Open source as defined by OSI is not supposed to solve everyone's problem. It's mainly concerned with the needs of hackers. That is incorrect, because the Open Source Definition focuses on user freedom, which is not limited to "the needs of hackers". Open source software licenses guarantee that all users can use, examine, modify, and redistribute the software as they please. For example, Meta disallowing Llama 2 from being used for certain purposes is an infringement on user freedom (relevant to all users, not just "hackers") that disqualifies Llama 2 from being open source. > A mere consumer of software, or a software company can also benefit from open source, but open source demonstrably does not take all their needs into account. You'll need to be more specific about these supposed "needs". You can argue that software developers may be more commercially successful by making their software proprietary or source-available instead of open source. However, users will always be better served by using the same software under a free and open source software license that preserves user freedoms instead of a proprietary or source-available software license that does not.

JasonGoldman 3y ago
> open source software is not "carcinogenic" I'm referring to the outdated open source definition that is causing great projects leave the open source community. The rules, not the apps. > Open source software licenses guarantee that all users can use, examine, modify, and redistribute the software as they please. That sounds nice. But most users can't benefit from most of those rights, because they can't afford nor do they want to examine, modify, and redistribute the apps they install on their devices. They do, however, want privacy that the OSI's definition doesn't guarantee. > users will always be better served by using the same software under a free and open source software license that preserves user freedoms That's a common misconception that stems from advertising the hackable software as "free" and "open". This is a sanitized version of your argument that doesn't exploit users' cognitive biases: "users will always be better served by using the same software under a hackable software license that gives them hacking rights" It's intuitive to think why wouldn't anyone prefer something that is "open" and gives me a lot of "freedom" over something that is "closed" and "restricts" them? I have offered an answer in the link below. If you explain to users that by "preserving their freedom" you mean you are giving them permission to spend their time debugging the apps and expecting them to share their work with others without even getting paid they would not want to that. We know that because most consumers of open source software do not make significant [if any] code contributions to the software they use. The only freedom they ever utilize, is the freedom to use the app. But "freedom" out of context is very appealing. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-lies-beyond-free-and-open/23 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-lies-beyond-free-and-open/...
- commoner 3y ago
  > I'm referring to the outdated open source definition that is causing great projects leave the open source community. The Open Source Definition is not "outdated" just because you claim it is. It is still serving its purpose of protecting user freedoms, and it is doing a great job. When a project like MongoDB decides to use a license that is not open source, it is not the fault of the open source community that MongoDB Inc. made a decision for the project to become closed source. It is also not the fault of the open source community that Meta decided to make Llama 2 closed source while misusing the "open source" label to promote the project. MongoDB Inc. and Meta are solely responsible for their own business decisions. > But most users can't benefit from most of those rights, because they can't afford nor do they want to examine, modify, and redistribute the apps they install on their devices. You're wrong. All users benefit when other developers and security researchers examine a software for vulnerabilities to be fixed, and software is more easily examined when the source code is published. All users benefit when contributed patches and pull requests are merged, and when a discontinued project is forked and maintained again. All users benefit when these improved apps are redistributed and made available for them. > They do, however, want privacy that the OSI's definition doesn't guarantee. The purpose of the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/) is to ensure the user's freedom to use, examine, modify, and redistribute software. There is nothing in the Open Source Definition that limits the privacy of its users. You have also not provided any example of how weakening the Open Source Definition would improve user privacy. > That's a common misconception that stems from advertising the hackable software as "free" and "open". The free software movement has been around since the 1980s and the open source software movement has been around since the 1990s. Your forum post that you linked shows your disdain for free and open source software, but doesn't provide a single good reason why FOSS developers and FOSS users should stop calling free and open source software "free and open source software". I have no idea why you are spending so much effort to tell the FOSS community, a community that you evidently dislike, to abandon its goal of preserving user freedoms. It's not going to happen. The "fair-code" project is doing a much better job of promoting source-available software that is commercially restricted, partly because they don't try to antagonize their audience like you are doing, and partly because they recognize that the terms free software and open source software already have accepted meanings: https://faircode.io https://faircode.io

JasonGoldman 3y ago

> open source software is not "carcinogenic" I'm referring to the outdated open source definition that is causing great projects leave the open source community. The rules, not the apps. > Open source software licenses guarantee that all users can use, examine, modify, and redistribute the software as they please. That sounds nice. But most users can't benefit from most of those rights, because they can't afford nor do they want to examine, modify, and redistribute the apps they install on their devices. They do, however, want privacy that the OSI's definition doesn't guarantee. > users will always be better served by using the same software under a free and open source software license that preserves user freedoms That's a common misconception that stems from advertising the hackable software as "free" and "open". This is a sanitized version of your argument that doesn't exploit users' cognitive biases: "users will always be better served by using the same software under a hackable software license that gives them hacking rights" It's intuitive to think why wouldn't anyone prefer something that is "open" and gives me a lot of "freedom" over something that is "closed" and "restricts" them? I have offered an answer in the link below. If you explain to users that by "preserving their freedom" you mean you are giving them permission to spend their time debugging the apps and expecting them to share their work with others without even getting paid they would not want to that. We know that because most consumers of open source software do not make significant [if any] code contributions to the software they use. The only freedom they ever utilize, is the freedom to use the app. But "freedom" out of context is very appealing. https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-lies-beyond-free-and-open/23 https://forum.resoldev.com/t/what-lies-beyond-free-and-open/...

commoner 3y ago
> I'm referring to the outdated open source definition that is causing great projects leave the open source community. The Open Source Definition is not "outdated" just because you claim it is. It is still serving its purpose of protecting user freedoms, and it is doing a great job. When a project like MongoDB decides to use a license that is not open source, it is not the fault of the open source community that MongoDB Inc. made a decision for the project to become closed source. It is also not the fault of the open source community that Meta decided to make Llama 2 closed source while misusing the "open source" label to promote the project. MongoDB Inc. and Meta are solely responsible for their own business decisions. > But most users can't benefit from most of those rights, because they can't afford nor do they want to examine, modify, and redistribute the apps they install on their devices. You're wrong. All users benefit when other developers and security researchers examine a software for vulnerabilities to be fixed, and software is more easily examined when the source code is published. All users benefit when contributed patches and pull requests are merged, and when a discontinued project is forked and maintained again. All users benefit when these improved apps are redistributed and made available for them. > They do, however, want privacy that the OSI's definition doesn't guarantee. The purpose of the Open Source Definition (https://opensource.org/osd/ https://opensource.org/osd/) is to ensure the user's freedom to use, examine, modify, and redistribute software. There is nothing in the Open Source Definition that limits the privacy of its users. You have also not provided any example of how weakening the Open Source Definition would improve user privacy. > That's a common misconception that stems from advertising the hackable software as "free" and "open". The free software movement has been around since the 1980s and the open source software movement has been around since the 1990s. Your forum post that you linked shows your disdain for free and open source software, but doesn't provide a single good reason why FOSS developers and FOSS users should stop calling free and open source software "free and open source software". I have no idea why you are spending so much effort to tell the FOSS community, a community that you evidently dislike, to abandon its goal of preserving user freedoms. It's not going to happen. The "fair-code" project is doing a much better job of promoting source-available software that is commercially restricted, partly because they don't try to antagonize their audience like you are doing, and partly because they recognize that the terms free software and open source software already have accepted meanings: https://faircode.io https://faircode.io