3 ms·
Open Source has every bit as strict of a definition as Free Software. Open Source as a term was coined and popularized by the OSI. The term may have occasiona
by ensignavenger 2y ago
Open Source has every bit as strict of a definition as Free Software. Open Source as a term was coined and popularized by the OSI. The term may have occasionally been used in different contexts prior to the OSI, but it was never commonly applied to software before that.
One could argue that the OSI should have gotten a trademark on the term. But the FSF doesn't have a trademark on the term "free Software" either, so the terms have approximately equal legal protections.
Meta using the term "open source" to apply to their model data when their license isn't an open source license is dishonest at best.
- jrm4 2y agoI think I agree that they shouldn't use "open source," but again, this confusion highlights that you have to put in work when it comes to this topic. Free Software has the GPL, and all its related, healthy controversy. It's not perfectly clear, but it's far more battle-tested than the much more nebulous "Open source." People who like "free software" put in work, and better understood that, to some extent, you can't have your cake and eat it too. "Open Source" is much more about a whole lot (to me, naive) wishful thinking. (The OSI is a bunch of companies in a trenchcoat, the creators of the GPL were more principled.)
- ensignavenger 2y agoThe FSF accepts a lot more licenses than just the GPL family of licenses as free software. As for the OSI, I don't think they have ever hidden who they are, how the organization is ran, etc. https://opensource.org/about https://opensource.org/about I just noticed they are currently discussing what "Open Source AI" should mean. You can join in and add your thoughts tot he discussion.