3 ms·

I hate that people think they can control the definitions of "free" and "open" . I don't care about these biased propaganda definitions. If you want to promote

I hate that people think they can control the definitions of "free" and "open" . I don't care about these biased propaganda definitions. If you want to promote your definition use a branded trademarkable name, don't try to steal our shared use of common words.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
It's useful when words mean things. That goes double when the words are used for marketing. Like, yeah in theory it's odd for the OSI to define "Open Source", but in practice it turns out the only people who seem to object to this are people who really want the social capital from calling their stuff open source while actually screwing over the users.
- spencerflem 3y ago
  I think there are plenty of arguments for non-OSI approved licences and I don't think "screwing over their users" is even remotely close to why people choose them.
  - djao 3y ago
    It's perfectly acceptable to use whatever license you want, but then don't call it "open source."
    - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
      You should stop using the generic term open source if what you really mean is Open Source InitiativeⓇ OSI Certified™ license.
      - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
        Likewise, you should stop using the term open source if what you really mean is source available [0], especially with usage restrictions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
      - djao 3y ago
        I myself rarely use the term "open source" but this does not stop others from (mis)using it. The mere fact that a term is generic does not mean that it is meaningless. If someone is genuinely unaware or confused about what the rest of the world thinks "open source" means, then I am happy to educate them. But if they are deliberately exploiting mis-use of the term to hide nefarious intent, then they can go to hell.
prepend 3y ago
“Free” means something. If you want to stop people distributing your software through a site that has ads, then it’s not “free.” “Open source” means something too. The control people have is in using shared definitions. Language is malleable, so if enough people use a word incorrectly it changes the definition. But those people get to be called wrong for years until enough people misuse it to make it right.
- sangnoir 3y ago
  You're redefining big-F "Free" software as defined by the GPL, which aims to give users freedom to change their software - and is indifferent to; at best, restricts at the worst, the rights of intermediate software developers who inject themselves between Free software and users by choosing to redistribute or allow their software to be infected by the GPL bits. IMO, MIT & BSD give downstream developers more rights and are indifferent to end-users. GPL gives users more rights, and indifferent to downstream developers.
- spencerflem 3y ago
  You have one definition, of "free" but its not the only reasonable one. Is MIT not free because it requires attribution? Is no code free because it cannot be used in ways that break the law? Just because there are some restrictions does not make it completely unfree, and its fair for people to want to use what is the most natural word to refer to thing that are free enough for them. "OSI-approved" works if you want to be precise but one org does not have the right to dictate the use of a word as common as "open".
  - prepend 3y ago
    I don’t think I’ve said my definition of “free,” but restricting who can distribute my software seems pretty non-free to me. I don’t think there’s a true, single definition, but I think maybe the closest to that would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  There is no valid freedom to abuse. It's like complaining that you're not free to enslave. It's not a valid argument.

yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago

It's useful when words mean things. That goes double when the words are used for marketing. Like, yeah in theory it's odd for the OSI to define "Open Source", but in practice it turns out the only people who seem to object to this are people who really want the social capital from calling their stuff open source while actually screwing over the users.

spencerflem 3y ago
I think there are plenty of arguments for non-OSI approved licences and I don't think "screwing over their users" is even remotely close to why people choose them.
- djao 3y ago
  It's perfectly acceptable to use whatever license you want, but then don't call it "open source."
  - downWidOutaFite 3y ago
    You should stop using the generic term open source if what you really mean is Open Source InitiativeⓇ OSI Certified™ license.
    - yjftsjthsd-h 3y ago
      Likewise, you should stop using the term open source if what you really mean is source available [0], especially with usage restrictions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software
    - djao 3y ago
      I myself rarely use the term "open source" but this does not stop others from (mis)using it. The mere fact that a term is generic does not mean that it is meaningless. If someone is genuinely unaware or confused about what the rest of the world thinks "open source" means, then I am happy to educate them. But if they are deliberately exploiting mis-use of the term to hide nefarious intent, then they can go to hell.

prepend 3y ago

“Free” means something. If you want to stop people distributing your software through a site that has ads, then it’s not “free.” “Open source” means something too. The control people have is in using shared definitions. Language is malleable, so if enough people use a word incorrectly it changes the definition. But those people get to be called wrong for years until enough people misuse it to make it right.

sangnoir 3y ago
You're redefining big-F "Free" software as defined by the GPL, which aims to give users freedom to change their software - and is indifferent to; at best, restricts at the worst, the rights of intermediate software developers who inject themselves between Free software and users by choosing to redistribute or allow their software to be infected by the GPL bits. IMO, MIT & BSD give downstream developers more rights and are indifferent to end-users. GPL gives users more rights, and indifferent to downstream developers.
spencerflem 3y ago
You have one definition, of "free" but its not the only reasonable one. Is MIT not free because it requires attribution? Is no code free because it cannot be used in ways that break the law? Just because there are some restrictions does not make it completely unfree, and its fair for people to want to use what is the most natural word to refer to thing that are free enough for them. "OSI-approved" works if you want to be precise but one org does not have the right to dictate the use of a word as common as "open".
- prepend 3y ago
  I don’t think I’ve said my definition of “free,” but restricting who can distribute my software seems pretty non-free to me. I don’t think there’s a true, single definition, but I think maybe the closest to that would be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition
Brian_K_White 3y ago
There is no valid freedom to abuse. It's like complaining that you're not free to enslave. It's not a valid argument.