8 ms·

The Future of Open Source

10 points by ezekg 2y ago

scblock 2y ago
Except in the context of your jam example open source has always meant free software and has never meant non-free licenses. Hence the term source available. And now "fair source" are you kidding me? "Business friendly" yeah have fun. It's your software and your license. But you don't get to unilaterally redefine what we understand to be open source just because you're butt hurt you got called out on your misuse of the term.
- calebto 2y ago
  I don't think the fair source is trying to re-define open-source. These companies have acknowledge that people are passionate about keeping the term "open source" true to how the open source initiative defined it, and have chosen to create a new label in which these new licenses can be described by. Creating a distinction between companies who don't give public access to code at all, companies which share code but under licenses which protect their interests for a finite period of time, and "true" open source licenses.
  - scblock 2y ago
    They literally titled the blog post "The Future of Open Source".
onli 2y ago
This is not helpful: > This helped us realize that there is a vocal minority who still, for very good reasons, finds this phrase protected and specific. It's not a vocal minority who fights misuse of the term open source. It's basically everyone invested in this movement, even if FOSS has come to be a clearer wording in my circles. It's a minority of business men trying to misapply the term to have their cake and eat it too, to create "open source" software without giving the freedom rights that define open source. Just call it source available then and live with the negative connotation. They are justified. Also: > Today, nearly all open source software is written by or financed by corporations. It's always a bit sad and funny when people living in their bubble lose the grasp on reality. The statement is of course not true at all, the big majority of open source software continues to be written by free developers in their free time. But someone from that side of the business world wouldn't know that. What is true is that many big projects are controlled by corporations, and there is corporate influence on the biggest independent projects, like Linux. But that's not what the statement said.
- johnea 2y ago
  What ever you do, never ever say "free software"! The VC's will send a black escalade to raid your house in the middle of the night! 8-) What's in question here is the origin of the "free software" vs "open source" argument. "Open source" was from the beginning a tactic to seize the development model of "free software" and bend it to a coprporate profit motive. What could be better than getting a bunch of idealistic geks to write your s/w for you for free? A very real and practical thing that has been lost in the vilification of "free software" is the idea that a group of user's develop s/w that they need to use. As opposed to s/w that is developed to serve as a corporate product for sale. Thee are so many examples where "free software" could serve: such as a standards based word processor. Who would have thought the corp drones would be in the process of being drug into a subscription based version of M$ word in the new millenium 8-) Even after M$ being sued for anti-trust over the proprietary doc format. Don't worry, it's only going to get worse for here on out...
marssaxman 2y ago
What a foreign viewpoint this is! The author seems to be taking a coincidental implementation detail (GitHub is popular) for a fundamental quality of the open source idea (specific type of copyright license).
emresahin 2y ago
Let's say it company sourced software vs people sourced. It will be more obvious who supports it and why.

10 points by ezekg 2y ago

Except in the context of your jam example open source has always meant free software and has never meant non-free licenses. Hence the term source available. And now "fair source" are you kidding me? "Business friendly" yeah have fun. It's your software and your license. But you don't get to unilaterally redefine what we understand to be open source just because you're butt hurt you got called out on your misuse of the term.

calebto 2y ago
I don't think the fair source is trying to re-define open-source. These companies have acknowledge that people are passionate about keeping the term "open source" true to how the open source initiative defined it, and have chosen to create a new label in which these new licenses can be described by. Creating a distinction between companies who don't give public access to code at all, companies which share code but under licenses which protect their interests for a finite period of time, and "true" open source licenses.
- scblock 2y ago
  They literally titled the blog post "The Future of Open Source".

onli 2y ago

This is not helpful: > This helped us realize that there is a vocal minority who still, for very good reasons, finds this phrase protected and specific. It's not a vocal minority who fights misuse of the term open source. It's basically everyone invested in this movement, even if FOSS has come to be a clearer wording in my circles. It's a minority of business men trying to misapply the term to have their cake and eat it too, to create "open source" software without giving the freedom rights that define open source. Just call it source available then and live with the negative connotation. They are justified. Also: > Today, nearly all open source software is written by or financed by corporations. It's always a bit sad and funny when people living in their bubble lose the grasp on reality. The statement is of course not true at all, the big majority of open source software continues to be written by free developers in their free time. But someone from that side of the business world wouldn't know that. What is true is that many big projects are controlled by corporations, and there is corporate influence on the biggest independent projects, like Linux. But that's not what the statement said.

johnea 2y ago
What ever you do, never ever say "free software"! The VC's will send a black escalade to raid your house in the middle of the night! 8-) What's in question here is the origin of the "free software" vs "open source" argument. "Open source" was from the beginning a tactic to seize the development model of "free software" and bend it to a coprporate profit motive. What could be better than getting a bunch of idealistic geks to write your s/w for you for free? A very real and practical thing that has been lost in the vilification of "free software" is the idea that a group of user's develop s/w that they need to use. As opposed to s/w that is developed to serve as a corporate product for sale. Thee are so many examples where "free software" could serve: such as a standards based word processor. Who would have thought the corp drones would be in the process of being drug into a subscription based version of M$ word in the new millenium 8-) Even after M$ being sued for anti-trust over the proprietary doc format. Don't worry, it's only going to get worse for here on out...

marssaxman 2y ago

What a foreign viewpoint this is! The author seems to be taking a coincidental implementation detail (GitHub is popular) for a fundamental quality of the open source idea (specific type of copyright license).

emresahin 2y ago

Let's say it company sourced software vs people sourced. It will be more obvious who supports it and why.