6 ms·

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 w

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".
- teddyh 2y ago
  > 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 Really, now? Who was that? Where can we read this supposed original definition?
  - thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
    >> Who was that? Where can we read this supposed original definition? Christine Peterson published an account that states that 'open source' was based on helping people to better understand 'free software': 'The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label, "free software," was not its political connotations, but that—to newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly adopted: open source.' Source: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...

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".
teddyh 2y ago
> 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 Really, now? Who was that? Where can we read this supposed original definition?
- thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
  >> Who was that? Where can we read this supposed original definition? Christine Peterson published an account that states that 'open source' was based on helping people to better understand 'free software': 'The introduction of the term "open source software" was a deliberate effort to make this field of endeavor more understandable to newcomers and to business, which was viewed as necessary to its spread to a broader community of users. The problem with the main earlier label, "free software," was not its political connotations, but that—to newcomers—its seeming focus on price is distracting. A term was needed that focuses on the key issue of source code and that does not immediately confuse those new to the concept. The first term that came along at the right time and fulfilled these requirements was rapidly adopted: open source.' Source: https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source-software https://opensource.com/article/18/2/coining-term-open-source...