4 ms·

Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying. I'm pretty sure if this went to court a judge would say it's legally is open source because th

Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying. I'm pretty sure if this went to court a judge would say it's legally is open source because the source code is open. The fact, FOSS folk want to add a bunch of requirements to open source to make it harder for commercial software just stinks and that is really what it is. "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft.

actionfromafar 2y ago
A judge would rule what "open source" means?
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  Yes. For example, if I advertised my software as open source and you sued for false advertising. What do you think they don't rule on what things mean?
yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago
> Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying. Fair enough; I agree that having that one organization be the sole decider of Open Source is weird, so I'll happily accept as open source anything that the FSF or DFSG approve. > "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft. Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean.
- that_guy_iain 2y ago
  > Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean. This free work everyone talks about is not free. They need to maintain it, they need to review it, they need to baby-step new contributors, etc. That costs money. Not to mention, most aren't doing it to get free work. They're giving stuff away and folk are crying because they can't use someone else's work as free work. Look at any major open source product and you'll see nearly all the commits are done by paid employees. Open source is built on free work is a lie. Open Source is largely paid for.
  - thedevilslawyer 2y ago
    Very similarly, the access to the community and marketing benefits of open source are not free. The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this. It's a 2-way street on value and time.
    - that_guy_iain 2y ago
      > The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this. No, the community does it to get to use the software for free. That's enough. The right to make a competing company that just uses the software is not in the minds of most community members. I'm convinced the other people who care about this freedom don't contribute to anything.
      - thedevilslawyer 2y ago
        > That's enough It's opt-in. No one forces a project to pick open source. They don't get to decide what's enough. You clearly want open source to mean something other that what it by default means. A better place to put your efforts would be like folks over at fair.io, perhaps. It's not faring well IMO, but it's an honest take in the "no competing company" direction.
HumanOstrich 2y ago
> I'm pretty sure if this went to court a judge would say it's legally is open source because the source code is open. Talk to some lawyers. I'm sure you could bring the first lawsuit to try to get a judge to rule that everyone should agree with you on what "open source" means. Good luck with that.

actionfromafar 2y ago

A judge would rule what "open source" means?

that_guy_iain 2y ago
Yes. For example, if I advertised my software as open source and you sued for false advertising. What do you think they don't rule on what things mean?

yjftsjthsd-h 2y ago

> Honestly, I find this whole OSI open-source definition annoying. Fair enough; I agree that having that one organization be the sole decider of Open Source is weird, so I'll happily accept as open source anything that the FSF or DFSG approve. > "You can't claim you're open source because you limit competitors using your code for free" Pfft. Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean.

that_guy_iain 2y ago
> Correct. If you're trying to get the marketing advantage and let other people give you free work, then you get to play fair and other people also benefit. That's what those words mean. This free work everyone talks about is not free. They need to maintain it, they need to review it, they need to baby-step new contributors, etc. That costs money. Not to mention, most aren't doing it to get free work. They're giving stuff away and folk are crying because they can't use someone else's work as free work. Look at any major open source product and you'll see nearly all the commits are done by paid employees. Open source is built on free work is a lie. Open Source is largely paid for.
- thedevilslawyer 2y ago
  Very similarly, the access to the community and marketing benefits of open source are not free. The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this. It's a 2-way street on value and time.
  - that_guy_iain 2y ago
    > The community give these projects their consideration and valuable time, in exchange for the freedoms they get. Projects can obviously choose not do this. No, the community does it to get to use the software for free. That's enough. The right to make a competing company that just uses the software is not in the minds of most community members. I'm convinced the other people who care about this freedom don't contribute to anything.
    - thedevilslawyer 2y ago
      > That's enough It's opt-in. No one forces a project to pick open source. They don't get to decide what's enough. You clearly want open source to mean something other that what it by default means. A better place to put your efforts would be like folks over at fair.io, perhaps. It's not faring well IMO, but it's an honest take in the "no competing company" direction.

HumanOstrich 2y ago

> I'm pretty sure if this went to court a judge would say it's legally is open source because the source code is open. Talk to some lawyers. I'm sure you could bring the first lawsuit to try to get a judge to rule that everyone should agree with you on what "open source" means. Good luck with that.