3 ms·

The OSI apparently doesn't have the mandate from its members to even work on this, let alone approve it. The community is starting to regroup at https://discus

by samj 2y ago

The OSI apparently doesn't have the mandate from its members to even work on this, let alone approve it. The community is starting to regroup at https://discuss.opensourcedefinition.org https://discuss.opensourcedefinition.org because the OSI's own forums are now heavily censored. I encourage you to join the discussion about the future of Open Source, the first option being to keep everything as is.

justinclift 2y ago
For reference, this is the OSI Forum mentioned: https://discuss.opensource.org https://discuss.opensource.org Didn't personally know they even had one. ;)
jart 2y ago
OSI must defend the open source trademark. Otherwise the community loses everything. The legal system in the US doesn't provide them any other options but to act.
- tzs 2y ago
  They don’t have a US trademark on “open source”. Their trademarks are on “open source initiative” and “open source initiative approved license”.
scrollaway 2y ago
Heh... HN has always been full of massive proponents of the OSI, with people staunchly claiming any software under a license that isn't OSI-approved isn't 'real open source'. Now we're seeing that maybe putting all that trust and responsibility in one entity wasn't such a great idea.
- opan 2y ago
  We still have the FSF and free software, both predating "open source" and the OSI.
- seba_dos1 2y ago
  OSD is widely accepted in the community and I don't expect that to change regardless of what happens with AI definitions. Plus we still have FSF's definition and DFSG.
andrewmcwatters 2y ago
Hahaha… very open. Yeah, no one saw this coming.