4 ms·

“Oh yea, anything FUTO is not open source. It’s merely source available” I disagree and so does FUTO but in the interest of making nice with the community, the

by lowkey 2y ago

“Oh yea, anything FUTO is not open source. It’s merely source available” I disagree and so does FUTO but in the interest of making nice with the community, they now call their software license “source first.” Personally, I think of their license as open-source for humans, but not the for-profit legal fictions we call corporations. I am ok with that. Why does the OSI get to dictate the one true definition of open source? OSI didn’t invent the term. It was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998 and notably she is not even a member of OSI. They just co-opted the term from her. OSI was founded by still secret charter members and large corporate sponsors such as Google, Apple and Microsoft who make Billions off the back of free open source software while giving back almost nothing. FUTO was founded as an alternative to the tech oligopolies and their software is licensed as open-source except that they require separate licensing for commercial use, specifically to protect against exploitation by tech giants.

card_zero 2y ago
Is FUTO an acronym? https://www.futo.org/about/what-is-futo/ https://www.futo.org/about/what-is-futo/ doesn't say.
- cvwright 2y ago
  You can backronym all kinds of things into it. But in reality it’s four letters that sound good together. (And for which a domain name was available, I assume.)
  - card_zero 2y ago
    It's also a Nigerian university. But I'll go with "FU Tech Oligopoly".
Brian_K_White 2y ago
They don't dictate. It's an interesting reaction to suggest that. They developed a definition as a service and gave it to everyone to use just like one does with software or art. Other people have decided that they agree that this definition correctly describes a bag of concepts and principles they need some sungle convenient collective term for. They "dictate" the definition only in the same way you "dictate" the contents of anything you wrote, or the way you "dictate" what your own name is. If I say "Foo is not an OSI approved license." I am the one "dictating" something. I am using a definition that was written down so that it's available for me to use as a reference when I want to say the entire bag of principles without having to spell them all out each time in a tweet or something. All the OSI did is write down some ideals and principles the same as a wikipedia page. They have no power to "dictate" that you exhibit those values. If you don't hold those principles, then don't. What, you want to be able to call yourself a saint and enjoy the admiration due to saints, without having to actually live up to the annoying things that actually make a saint worthy of that admiration? Ok.
- quilnux 2y ago
  In my opinion, the term "open source" means "the source [code] is open for people to see". You might be able to stretch that to include "and modify" but that is stretching it. That is all "open source" really means. It's open for people to see/view. Beyond that, is where a license comes in to restrict or give freedom beyond the term of "open source". That is what OSI does. Adds additional requirements within a license. It cannot change the definition of the term "open source" however.
  - woobilicious 2y ago
    Open comes with the ability to participate, an open door is to let something physical through, not like a transparent window that lets one see, an open market, open auction, or open sports league explicitly implies more than just viewing the activity. For many of us, we've never used "open" to mean viewing. Right now I wouldn't trust the license to let me message my boss or buy something from a store on my personal phone without violation, commercial activity is an extremely broad term.
- lowkey 2y ago
  Agree with your statement. It is accurate for me to say that the FUTO license is open-source according to the original definition of open-source as coined by the author of the term, which focused on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code, but made no mention of the ability to commercialize without compensation. If you say “FUTO is not an OSI approved open-source license since it does not conform to their Open Source Definition” - you are also 100% correct. When one implies that the FUTO license is not open source, without further clarification, such as adding “according to OSI” then the accuracy of the statement is less clear.
  - quilnux 2y ago
    I love how people have this unqualified belief that the OSI somehow owns the rights to define the term "open source". I guess these people don't know that OSI doesn't own any rights to the term "open source" AND when OSI tried to trademark the term, they were rejected. So "open source" doesn't have to mean what OSI says it does. OSI has their own definition of what "open source" means (which I disagree with them on). FUTO and others are well within their right to define "open source" the way they want. If OSI had the right to define it, then they would be suing FUTO right now. They aren't because they know they can't enforce any definition of "open source".
hollerith 2y ago
>OSI didn’t invent the term. It was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998. It was suggested by Peterson in a conversation with the founders of OSI. The conversation went something like this: "Hey, Christine Peterson, the FSF is doing a bad job explaining free software to business owners and executives, and we think we can do better. Right now we're trying to come up with a replacement for the name 'free software'". The only reason anyone ever started using the phrase "open source" in the context of software licensing is because of the activism of OSI.
- lowkey 2y ago
  This statement is factually incorrect. The OSI didn’t even exist when the term was invented by Christine Peterson on February 3rd, 1998. It is true that she was looking for a term to replace “free software” with something more akin to free speech than free beer but she specifically avoided adding any constraints either way on limitations for licensees to commercialize works in order to remain non-political. Notably the inventor of the term has never been a part of the Open Source Initiative and the term Open Source pre-dates the oSI.
  - hollerith 2y ago
    I notice that you didn't try to refute my assertion that she was in a conversation with the founders of OSI when she coined the term or my assertion that if it weren't for OSI, the public would have never heard of the phrase "open source" as applied to software licenses. Also, has Peterson ever published anything on the subject of software licenses? I severely doubt it. You are trying to influence public opinion by citing facts out of context and ignoring any facts that disagree with your chosen narrative. Your motivation is probably to justify your using the phrase "open source" in a misleading way to market something you have a personal interest in.
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
> specifically to protect against exploitation by tech giants. What exploitation does (A)GPL not protect against?
- em-bee 2y ago
  the (A)GPL does not protect me from a big resourceful company running my code and selling services based on it competing against me, while not paying me a dime. most such companies avoid the AGPL because it prevents them from creating proprietary extensions to the code, but not because it would prevent them from commercially exploiting the code and profiting from it. the problem that FUTO is trying to address is the commercial exploitation at the expense of the original creators. a problem that several companies (redis, mongodb, elasticsearch, zerotier, terraform, vagrant, and many more...) in recent years had to face, causing them to change their license. it's a problem that bruce perens is also trying to address: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38783500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38783500 "What comes after open source? Bruce Perens is working on it"
  - notpushkin 2y ago
    I'm wondering why FUTO doesn't use AGPL for its Android apps – it's not like anybody is going to run them on a server. To prevent forks removing the payment requirement, perhaps? It's not really going to stop pirates though.
    - simion314 2y ago
      >To prevent forks removing the payment requirement, perhaps? It's not really going to stop pirates though. I think is to prevent shits forking it and putting ads or malware in the programs, Like those asholes that put malware in VLC and then paid Google to have their website on top of the search results. Indeed Google will accept money from your competition or from bad people to put their shit websites on top of a legit result.
      - nani8ot 2y ago
kragen 2y ago
chris peterson did in fact found osi, in the sense that she was at the meeting which founded it; see https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... for her account. google, apple, and microsoft did not. where are you getting this nonsense

by lowkey 2y ago

card_zero 2y ago

Is FUTO an acronym? https://www.futo.org/about/what-is-futo/ https://www.futo.org/about/what-is-futo/ doesn't say.

cvwright 2y ago
You can backronym all kinds of things into it. But in reality it’s four letters that sound good together. (And for which a domain name was available, I assume.)
- card_zero 2y ago
  It's also a Nigerian university. But I'll go with "FU Tech Oligopoly".

Brian_K_White 2y ago

They don't dictate. It's an interesting reaction to suggest that. They developed a definition as a service and gave it to everyone to use just like one does with software or art. Other people have decided that they agree that this definition correctly describes a bag of concepts and principles they need some sungle convenient collective term for. They "dictate" the definition only in the same way you "dictate" the contents of anything you wrote, or the way you "dictate" what your own name is. If I say "Foo is not an OSI approved license." I am the one "dictating" something. I am using a definition that was written down so that it's available for me to use as a reference when I want to say the entire bag of principles without having to spell them all out each time in a tweet or something. All the OSI did is write down some ideals and principles the same as a wikipedia page. They have no power to "dictate" that you exhibit those values. If you don't hold those principles, then don't. What, you want to be able to call yourself a saint and enjoy the admiration due to saints, without having to actually live up to the annoying things that actually make a saint worthy of that admiration? Ok.

quilnux 2y ago
In my opinion, the term "open source" means "the source [code] is open for people to see". You might be able to stretch that to include "and modify" but that is stretching it. That is all "open source" really means. It's open for people to see/view. Beyond that, is where a license comes in to restrict or give freedom beyond the term of "open source". That is what OSI does. Adds additional requirements within a license. It cannot change the definition of the term "open source" however.
- woobilicious 2y ago
  Open comes with the ability to participate, an open door is to let something physical through, not like a transparent window that lets one see, an open market, open auction, or open sports league explicitly implies more than just viewing the activity. For many of us, we've never used "open" to mean viewing. Right now I wouldn't trust the license to let me message my boss or buy something from a store on my personal phone without violation, commercial activity is an extremely broad term.
lowkey 2y ago
Agree with your statement. It is accurate for me to say that the FUTO license is open-source according to the original definition of open-source as coined by the author of the term, which focused on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code, but made no mention of the ability to commercialize without compensation. If you say “FUTO is not an OSI approved open-source license since it does not conform to their Open Source Definition” - you are also 100% correct. When one implies that the FUTO license is not open source, without further clarification, such as adding “according to OSI” then the accuracy of the statement is less clear.
- quilnux 2y ago
  I love how people have this unqualified belief that the OSI somehow owns the rights to define the term "open source". I guess these people don't know that OSI doesn't own any rights to the term "open source" AND when OSI tried to trademark the term, they were rejected. So "open source" doesn't have to mean what OSI says it does. OSI has their own definition of what "open source" means (which I disagree with them on). FUTO and others are well within their right to define "open source" the way they want. If OSI had the right to define it, then they would be suing FUTO right now. They aren't because they know they can't enforce any definition of "open source".

hollerith 2y ago

>OSI didn’t invent the term. It was invented by Christine Peterson in 1998. It was suggested by Peterson in a conversation with the founders of OSI. The conversation went something like this: "Hey, Christine Peterson, the FSF is doing a bad job explaining free software to business owners and executives, and we think we can do better. Right now we're trying to come up with a replacement for the name 'free software'". The only reason anyone ever started using the phrase "open source" in the context of software licensing is because of the activism of OSI.

lowkey 2y ago
This statement is factually incorrect. The OSI didn’t even exist when the term was invented by Christine Peterson on February 3rd, 1998. It is true that she was looking for a term to replace “free software” with something more akin to free speech than free beer but she specifically avoided adding any constraints either way on limitations for licensees to commercialize works in order to remain non-political. Notably the inventor of the term has never been a part of the Open Source Initiative and the term Open Source pre-dates the oSI.
- hollerith 2y ago
  I notice that you didn't try to refute my assertion that she was in a conversation with the founders of OSI when she coined the term or my assertion that if it weren't for OSI, the public would have never heard of the phrase "open source" as applied to software licenses. Also, has Peterson ever published anything on the subject of software licenses? I severely doubt it. You are trying to influence public opinion by citing facts out of context and ignoring any facts that disagree with your chosen narrative. Your motivation is probably to justify your using the phrase "open source" in a misleading way to market something you have a personal interest in.

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago

> specifically to protect against exploitation by tech giants. What exploitation does (A)GPL not protect against?

em-bee 2y ago
the (A)GPL does not protect me from a big resourceful company running my code and selling services based on it competing against me, while not paying me a dime. most such companies avoid the AGPL because it prevents them from creating proprietary extensions to the code, but not because it would prevent them from commercially exploiting the code and profiting from it. the problem that FUTO is trying to address is the commercial exploitation at the expense of the original creators. a problem that several companies (redis, mongodb, elasticsearch, zerotier, terraform, vagrant, and many more...) in recent years had to face, causing them to change their license. it's a problem that bruce perens is also trying to address: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38783500 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38783500 "What comes after open source? Bruce Perens is working on it"
- notpushkin 2y ago
  I'm wondering why FUTO doesn't use AGPL for its Android apps – it's not like anybody is going to run them on a server. To prevent forks removing the payment requirement, perhaps? It's not really going to stop pirates though.
  - simion314 2y ago
    >To prevent forks removing the payment requirement, perhaps? It's not really going to stop pirates though. I think is to prevent shits forking it and putting ads or malware in the programs, Like those asholes that put malware in VLC and then paid Google to have their website on top of the search results. Indeed Google will accept money from your competition or from bad people to put their shit websites on top of a legit result.
    - nani8ot 2y ago

kragen 2y ago

chris peterson did in fact found osi, in the sense that she was at the meeting which founded it; see https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source... for her account. google, apple, and microsoft did not. where are you getting this nonsense