3 ms·

only because OSI says so. I don't agree with the idea of OSI defining my philosophical positions and technical terms for me, just like I don't agree with the BS

only because OSI says so. I don't agree with the idea of OSI defining my philosophical positions and technical terms for me, just like I don't agree with the BSD people excluding GPL from the definition of open source.

yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
I'm sympathetic to the OSI not being the only authority. So, have the DFSG, FSF, any BSD, or literally anyone credible endorsed it as Free and/or Open Source?
- pabs3 1y ago
  None of the folks you list have, only other FOSS-adjacent movements like Fair Source etc.
- immibis 1y ago
  None of them have bothered to evaluate it or have explicitly decided it's not worth evaluating for now. They haven't endorsed it as Proprietary and/or Closed Source either. And notice the OSI's objection actually makes no sense and could apply to any copyleft license! By the same reasoning, AGPL isn't open source. Yet they say it is.
  - yjftsjthsd-h 1y ago
    > None of them have bothered to evaluate it or have explicitly decided it's not worth evaluating for now. They haven't endorsed it as Proprietary and/or Closed Source either. That's not quite true. Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_Side_Public_License , Debian did explicitly reject it (in addition to listing OSI and Red Hat likewise), citing https://web.archive.org/web/20240226231216/https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=915537#15 https://web.archive.org/web/20240226231216/https://bugs.debi... - However, the SSPL is clearly not in the sprit of the DFSG, yet alone complimentary to the Debian's goals of promoting software or user freedom. In light of this, the Project does not consider that software licensed under the SSPL to be suitable for inclusion in the Debian archive.