4 ms·

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 t

by 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...
  - teddyh 2y ago
    That does not sound like they wanted to change the definition of “free software”, only rename it. And “free software”, as (originally, and still) defined by the FSF, has always required permitting commercial use.
marcinzm 2y ago
The author of the term according to their own account merely coined a new term for the existing concepts covered by free software. Those concepts as of 1998 were: - The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs. - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can share with your neighbor. - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185518/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185518/http://www.gnu.or... Those are absolutes that apply to everyone. Period. If you can't release improvements because you are a commercial entity then that means the third freedom is restricted. That means it's not free software. The FSF also covered the ability to charge for distributing copies as long as those freedoms were not lost in the process: https://web.archive.org/web/19980126190125/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://web.archive.org/web/19980126190125/http://www.gnu.or... These are absolutely not kept by a license such as FUTO that restricts these freedoms to certain groups and certain types of activities.
- j16sdiz 2y ago
  I understand the word "neighbor" and "community" in the narrow, personal relationship, sense.
- j16sdiz 2y ago
  > ... so you can share with your neighbor. I understand the word "neighbor" and "community" in the narrow, personal relationship, sense. > The FSF also covered ... I think FSF's GFDL is general non-free, and all copy left license are discriminative for ideology
- xigoi 2y ago
  > If you can't release improvements because you are a commercial entity then that means the third freedom is restricted. You say that as if megacorporations improved open-source software instead of just using it to develop their shitty proprietary software.
kragen 2y ago
you are lying. the osi (including chris peterson) are pro-capitalism and always gave been. 'the ability to commercialize without compensation' is something they repeatedly emphasized from the moment they invented the phrase
- lowkey 2y ago
  Really? You do know that Christine Peterson isn’t even a member of the OSI, right?
  - kragen 2y ago
    how would you know if she was or not? you obviously don't know her, and osi doesn't publish a list of its individual members but if she did stop contributing her $50 a year at some point in the last 26 years, how is that relevant? she founded it, in the sense that she was at the meeting which founded it. the osi was specifically the initiative for which she proposed the name
    - lowkey 2y ago
      According to the following source she was not a founding member and she has never been a formal member, though she did invent the term open source [1] "Peterson was not a founding member of the OSI. The OSI was founded by Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond, who were instrumental in promoting the term "open source" after Peterson introduced it" "Christine Peterson is not currently a member of the Open Source Initiative (OSI), nor has she ever been a formal member of the organization. However, she played a significant role in the open-source movement by coining the term "open source software" in 1998." [1] https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-christine-peterson-a-member-a7iYxySwQdSUFAT.mlQUqA https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-christine-peterson-a-mem...
      - kragen 2y ago
        that's not a source, that's an ai bullshit text generator, and the actual sources it's referencing don't back up the assertions it makes, as you surely know, since reading them only takes a minute or two. they're all just slight paraphrases of her post that i and others have linked in different comments regardless, the osi's membership roster is irrelevant to your assertion, 'the FUTO license is open-source according to the original definition of open-source as coined by the author of the term,' which it is not, and which futo doesn't claim it is the lack of integrity you are exhibiting is staggering. stop posting defamatory lies

by lowkey 2y ago

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...
- teddyh 2y ago
  That does not sound like they wanted to change the definition of “free software”, only rename it. And “free software”, as (originally, and still) defined by the FSF, has always required permitting commercial use.

marcinzm 2y ago

The author of the term according to their own account merely coined a new term for the existing concepts covered by free software. Those concepts as of 1998 were: - The freedom to study how the program works and adapt it to your needs. - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can share with your neighbor. - The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits. https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185518/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://web.archive.org/web/19980126185518/http://www.gnu.or... Those are absolutes that apply to everyone. Period. If you can't release improvements because you are a commercial entity then that means the third freedom is restricted. That means it's not free software. The FSF also covered the ability to charge for distributing copies as long as those freedoms were not lost in the process: https://web.archive.org/web/19980126190125/http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html https://web.archive.org/web/19980126190125/http://www.gnu.or... These are absolutely not kept by a license such as FUTO that restricts these freedoms to certain groups and certain types of activities.

j16sdiz 2y ago
I understand the word "neighbor" and "community" in the narrow, personal relationship, sense.
j16sdiz 2y ago
> ... so you can share with your neighbor. I understand the word "neighbor" and "community" in the narrow, personal relationship, sense. > The FSF also covered ... I think FSF's GFDL is general non-free, and all copy left license are discriminative for ideology
xigoi 2y ago
> If you can't release improvements because you are a commercial entity then that means the third freedom is restricted. You say that as if megacorporations improved open-source software instead of just using it to develop their shitty proprietary software.

kragen 2y ago

you are lying. the osi (including chris peterson) are pro-capitalism and always gave been. 'the ability to commercialize without compensation' is something they repeatedly emphasized from the moment they invented the phrase

lowkey 2y ago
Really? You do know that Christine Peterson isn’t even a member of the OSI, right?
- kragen 2y ago
  how would you know if she was or not? you obviously don't know her, and osi doesn't publish a list of its individual members but if she did stop contributing her $50 a year at some point in the last 26 years, how is that relevant? she founded it, in the sense that she was at the meeting which founded it. the osi was specifically the initiative for which she proposed the name
  - lowkey 2y ago
    According to the following source she was not a founding member and she has never been a formal member, though she did invent the term open source [1] "Peterson was not a founding member of the OSI. The OSI was founded by Bruce Perens and Eric Raymond, who were instrumental in promoting the term "open source" after Peterson introduced it" "Christine Peterson is not currently a member of the Open Source Initiative (OSI), nor has she ever been a formal member of the organization. However, she played a significant role in the open-source movement by coining the term "open source software" in 1998." [1] https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-christine-peterson-a-member-a7iYxySwQdSUFAT.mlQUqA https://www.perplexity.ai/search/is-christine-peterson-a-mem...
    - kragen 2y ago
      that's not a source, that's an ai bullshit text generator, and the actual sources it's referencing don't back up the assertions it makes, as you surely know, since reading them only takes a minute or two. they're all just slight paraphrases of her post that i and others have linked in different comments regardless, the osi's membership roster is irrelevant to your assertion, 'the FUTO license is open-source according to the original definition of open-source as coined by the author of the term,' which it is not, and which futo doesn't claim it is the lack of integrity you are exhibiting is staggering. stop posting defamatory lies