4 ms·

“It is arrogant of FUTO to try to redefine 'open source' to their liking” What if FUTO isn’t trying to redefine the term but merely reminding everyone of the o

by lowkey 2y ago

“It is arrogant of FUTO to try to redefine 'open source' to their liking” What if FUTO isn’t trying to redefine the term but merely reminding everyone of the original definition as it was coined by the inventor of the term which focused exclusively on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code - with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s)

thesuperbigfrog 2y ago
>> What if FUTO isn’t trying to redefine the term but merely reminding everyone of the original definition as it was coined by the inventor of the term which focused exclusively on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code - with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s) Christine Peterson who originally coined the term 'open source' to describe software licensing did so as a way to remove confusion surrounding the term '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... The GNU GPL version 2 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html) which was in use at that time does allow for the commercial resale of the software: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#D... When you state "with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s)" then the opposite of what you are insinuating is also true--it was not mentioned because the ideas had already been stated and in practice in free software.
- lowkey 2y ago
  “ When you state "with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s)" then the opposite of what you are insinuating is also true--it was not mentioned because the ideas had already been stated and in practice in free software.” Agree with this assertion. The original definition was intended to be non-political and so specifically excluded any assertions related to the commercialization of software licensed as open source. In other words it didn’t make any assertions one way or another. The OSI later clarified that according to their open source definition (OSD)TM only licenses that did not limit commercialization by licensees would be considered open source. I assert that this decision was most likely influenced by OSI’s big tech closed-source financial doners, though you are free to disagree.

by lowkey 2y ago

thesuperbigfrog 2y ago

>> What if FUTO isn’t trying to redefine the term but merely reminding everyone of the original definition as it was coined by the inventor of the term which focused exclusively on the freedom to view, modify, and distribute the software's source code - with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s) Christine Peterson who originally coined the term 'open source' to describe software licensing did so as a way to remove confusion surrounding the term '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... The GNU GPL version 2 (https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.en.html) which was in use at that time does allow for the commercial resale of the software: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#D... When you state "with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s)" then the opposite of what you are insinuating is also true--it was not mentioned because the ideas had already been stated and in practice in free software.

lowkey 2y ago
“ When you state "with no mention of the ability to commercially exploit the software without compensating the original author(s)" then the opposite of what you are insinuating is also true--it was not mentioned because the ideas had already been stated and in practice in free software.” Agree with this assertion. The original definition was intended to be non-political and so specifically excluded any assertions related to the commercialization of software licensed as open source. In other words it didn’t make any assertions one way or another. The OSI later clarified that according to their open source definition (OSD)TM only licenses that did not limit commercialization by licensees would be considered open source. I assert that this decision was most likely influenced by OSI’s big tech closed-source financial doners, though you are free to disagree.