3 ms·

Perhaps one day we will have a way to monetize software development that works for true Free Software and doesn't require these bullshit openwashing licenses.

ezekg 2y ago
I don't really follow how fair source is openwashing.
- davidgerard 2y ago
  This entire proposal is extremely clearly yet another attempt to promote a non-Open Source license in the same spaces, which is why it mentions open source licenses so much. I don't see how anyone could make out that it isn't.
  - ezekg 2y ago
    That's like arguing that source-available is openwashing and that doesn't make any sense.
    - max-privatevoid 2y ago
      Source-available has a very misleading nature, and as such is commonly used for openwashing. You can read the source, but you can't really do anything with it. That's not how it usually is when you are given access to the source code. Companies such as Anytype market their source-available product as "Open Code" or similar. They are carefully avoiding the term "Open Source", but they still make many ambiguous claims of openness. Tuist is doing the same thing: > As you might know, we aim to make Tuist a fully open project. > So I think a fully open Tuist platform could unfold this way: [...] The intention is clearly to NOT be fully open. > We can only build the best in class productivity platform if we embrace openness. They are not embracing openness. They are trying to reap the benefits that come with being open, such as code contributions and a higher level of trust, while not actually being open.
      - ezekg 2y ago
        Is source-available more open than closed source? Yes. Is fair source more open than source-available? Yes. Is open source more open than fair source? Yes. I don't see any attempt at communicating otherwise. Nobody is claiming fair source is as open as open source. Fair source is very clearly defined as not being open source, but it is closer to open source than the alternatives, and even becomes open source, and that's a good thing. We should all be happy about that. But people still find fault... The OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the word "open." It has meaning, and in these cases it's being used appropriately. It's not an attempt at openwashing.
        max-privatevoid 2y ago
        It's not Open Source, it's not open. Being "close" to Open Source is completely useless.
        ezekg 2y ago
        Nonsense. The tens of thousands of people who self-host and contribute to Fair Source software would say otherwise. The world isn't so black and white.
    - davidgerard 2y ago
      When it's presented as an alternative to being properly open source - as it is here - then it absolutely is open-washing. > and that doesn't make any sense. It makes sense to quite a lot of other commenters here. I'm afraid you're coming across as trying a bit hard not to understand the issues being raised.
      - ezekg 2y ago
        > When it's presented as an alternative to being properly open source - as it is here - then it absolutely is open-washing. No, it's being presented as an alternative to being properly closed source.
      - hitekker 2y ago
        Speak for yourself. I have not seen the accusations in this thread represented in the article. But I’m also not ideologically invested in either side. IMO, it’s silly to insinuate the OP is obtuse while looking quite obtuse yourself.

ezekg 2y ago

I don't really follow how fair source is openwashing.

davidgerard 2y ago
This entire proposal is extremely clearly yet another attempt to promote a non-Open Source license in the same spaces, which is why it mentions open source licenses so much. I don't see how anyone could make out that it isn't.
- ezekg 2y ago
  That's like arguing that source-available is openwashing and that doesn't make any sense.
  - max-privatevoid 2y ago
    Source-available has a very misleading nature, and as such is commonly used for openwashing. You can read the source, but you can't really do anything with it. That's not how it usually is when you are given access to the source code. Companies such as Anytype market their source-available product as "Open Code" or similar. They are carefully avoiding the term "Open Source", but they still make many ambiguous claims of openness. Tuist is doing the same thing: > As you might know, we aim to make Tuist a fully open project. > So I think a fully open Tuist platform could unfold this way: [...] The intention is clearly to NOT be fully open. > We can only build the best in class productivity platform if we embrace openness. They are not embracing openness. They are trying to reap the benefits that come with being open, such as code contributions and a higher level of trust, while not actually being open.
    - ezekg 2y ago
      Is source-available more open than closed source? Yes. Is fair source more open than source-available? Yes. Is open source more open than fair source? Yes. I don't see any attempt at communicating otherwise. Nobody is claiming fair source is as open as open source. Fair source is very clearly defined as not being open source, but it is closer to open source than the alternatives, and even becomes open source, and that's a good thing. We should all be happy about that. But people still find fault... The OSI doesn't have a monopoly on the word "open." It has meaning, and in these cases it's being used appropriately. It's not an attempt at openwashing.
      - max-privatevoid 2y ago
        It's not Open Source, it's not open. Being "close" to Open Source is completely useless.
        ezekg 2y ago
        Nonsense. The tens of thousands of people who self-host and contribute to Fair Source software would say otherwise. The world isn't so black and white.
  - davidgerard 2y ago
    When it's presented as an alternative to being properly open source - as it is here - then it absolutely is open-washing. > and that doesn't make any sense. It makes sense to quite a lot of other commenters here. I'm afraid you're coming across as trying a bit hard not to understand the issues being raised.
    - ezekg 2y ago
      > When it's presented as an alternative to being properly open source - as it is here - then it absolutely is open-washing. No, it's being presented as an alternative to being properly closed source.
    - hitekker 2y ago
      Speak for yourself. I have not seen the accusations in this thread represented in the article. But I’m also not ideologically invested in either side. IMO, it’s silly to insinuate the OP is obtuse while looking quite obtuse yourself.